Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> I think we'd want the patch below. It can be applied independently
> (though if we do take the index-iterating version of Ævar's patch, I
> think it should switch to size_t).
Yeah, I do not see a strong need for _pushvec(), especially the
variant that does not preallocate, when we have _pushv(). But the
type fix below does make sense.
> -- >8 --
> Subject: [PATCH] strvec: use size_t to store nr and alloc
>
> We converted argv_array (which later became strvec) to use size_t in
> 819f0e76b1 (argv-array: use size_t for count and alloc, 2020-07-28) in
> order to avoid the possibility of integer overflow. But later, commit
> d70a9eb611 (strvec: rename struct fields, 2020-07-28) accidentally
> converted these back to ints!
>
> Those two commits were part of the same patch series. I'm pretty sure
> what happened is that they were originally written in the opposite order
> and then cleaned up and re-ordered during an interactive rebase. And
> when resolving the inevitable conflict, I mistakenly took the "rename"
> patch completely, accidentally dropping the type change.
>
> We can correct it now; better late than never.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx>
> ---
> strvec.h | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/strvec.h b/strvec.h
> index fdcad75b45..6b3cbd6758 100644
> --- a/strvec.h
> +++ b/strvec.h
> @@ -29,8 +29,8 @@ extern const char *empty_strvec[];
> */
> struct strvec {
> const char **v;
> - int nr;
> - int alloc;
> + size_t nr;
> + size_t alloc;
> };
>
> #define STRVEC_INIT { empty_strvec, 0, 0 }
