On 8/29/2021 7:54 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> 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.
Thanks for chiming in. I was not aware of _pushv() when I asked
about the _pushvec() variant. Sorry, Ævar, for sending you down
an unnecessary direction.
>> -- >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.
...
>> struct strvec {
>> const char **v;
>> - int nr;
>> - int alloc;
>> + size_t nr;
>> + size_t alloc;
>> };
This is also a good change to take.
Thanks,
-Stolee
