Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > I'd rather see the function lose the NUL termination; if that makes the > behaviour inconsistent with its name, perhaps it is better to rename the > function; perhaps xmalloc1() to denote that it overallocates by one? Actually I take that back---all the callers do benefit from the allocator giving a buffer that is pre-terminated with NUL. We can also lose "buf[size] = 0" from unpack_sha1_rest() patch. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html