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.
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.
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.
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.