Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> + for (i = start; i < argc; i++) {
>> + if (safe_create_reflog(argv[i], &err, 1)) {
>> + error("could not create reflog %s: %s", argv[i],
>> + err.buf);
>> + status = 1;
>> + strbuf_release(&err);
>
> This feels a bit dirty.
Hmm, I do not share that feeling. I wouldn't be surprised if you
found a lot of existing codepaths that run _init() a strbuf once,
work on it and then _release() once a section of code is done with
it, reuse it for further (unrelated) processing, knowing that
_release() implicitly did _init() and the strbuf is ready to use
after that. I thought that was a very well established pattern.
> While it's true that the current
> implementation of strbuf_release() re-initializes the strbuf (so
> you're not technically wrong by re-using it), that's an implementation
> detail; and indeed, the strbuf_release() documentation says:
>
> Release a string buffer and the memory it used. You should not
> use the string buffer after using this function, unless you
> initialize it again.
Hmph. Perhaps the doc is wrong? ;-)
> Alternatives would be strbuf_reset() or declaring and releasing the
> strbuf within the for-loop scope.
Because _reset() just rewinds the .len pointer without deallocating,
you would need an extra _release() before it goes out of scope. If
it is expected that the strbuf will be reused for a number of times,
the length of the string each iteration uses is similar, and you
will iterate the loop many times, "_reset() each time and _release()
to clean-up" pattern would save many calls to realloc/free.
--
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