Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
>> If we do handle it up-front, then I think we'd actually want:
>>
>> if (!size) {
>> free(ptr);
>> return xmalloc(0);
>> }
>>
>> (i.e., to never return NULL for consistency with xmalloc() and
>> xcalloc()).
>
> Makes sense. I suspect that this is optimizing for a wrong case,
> but in practice that should not matter. Not having to worry about
> a request to resize to 0-byte in the remainder of the function is
> actually a plus for readability, I would say.
I agree with both points: if we were repeatedly shrinking and growing
a buffer and cared about its performance, then we'd want the first
version, and since we aren't, we should prefer this version that is
more readable.
Thanks,
Jonathan
