On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Brandon Williams <bmwill@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > +void string_list_remove(struct string_list *list, const char *string, > + int free_util) > +{ > + int exact_match; > + int i = get_entry_index(list, string, &exact_match); > + > + if (exact_match) { > + if (list->strdup_strings) > + free(list->items[i].string); > + if (free_util) > + free(list->items[i].util); > + > + list->nr--; > + memmove(list->items + i, list->items + i + 1, > + (list->nr - i) * sizeof(struct string_list_item)); > + } Looks correct. I shortly wondered if we'd have any value in returing `exact_match`, as that may save the caller some code, as I imagine the caller to be: if (!string_list_has_string(&list, string)) die("BUG: ..."); string_list_remove(&list, string, 0); which could be simplified if we had the exact_match returned, i.e. the string_list_remove returns the implicit string_list_has_string. > /* > + * Removes the given string from the sorted list. What happens when the string is not found? > + */ > +void string_list_remove(struct string_list *list, const char *string, int free_util); How much do we care about (eventual) consistency? ;) i.e. mark it extern ? Thanks, Stefan