5 ms·

I don't understand why talloc preclues a different malloc/free implementation. According to the article, talloc is a malloc wrapper. If that's the case, why sh

I don't understand why talloc preclues a different malloc/free implementation. According to the article, talloc is a malloc wrapper. If that's the case, why shouldn't you be able to drop in whatever allocator you want? talloc should still use it under the covers.

Locke1689 16y ago
Ah, I didn't see it's a wrapper. In that case, what's the point of using it at all? If it doesn't help to optimize the memory allocation, it seems more like a macro and less like a library.
- xyzzyz 16y ago
  Author of the article says quite clearly why he thinks it is useful.
  - Locke1689 16y ago
    But he doesn't quite make it clear if he wants it done for every memory allocation, or that specific type of allocation. The two have very different results.