The bug report wasn't caused by calloc, free, calloc being expensive. It was caused by making a call that did "malloc + memset" when only malloc was needed. The

The bug report wasn't caused by calloc, free, calloc being expensive. It was caused by making a call that did "malloc + memset" when only malloc was needed. The code in question wasn't even invoking calloc at all, it just ended up being an excuse to investigate zeroing memory behavior. Incidentally, the blog post asks "why was the memory being actively zeroed at all?" but never actually answers it.