"John Cai via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> +static void dispatch_calls(struct batch_options *opt,
> + struct strbuf *output,
> + struct expand_data *data,
> + struct queued_cmd *cmd,
> + size_t *nr)
> +{
> + int i;
> +
> + if (!opt->buffer_output)
> + die(_("flush is only for --buffer mode"));
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < *nr; i++) {
If you updated the max number of items *nr to size_t, don't you need
to use 'i' with the same type to count up to it?
> + cmd[i].fn(opt, cmd[i].line, output, data);
> + free(cmd[i].line);
> + }
> +
> + *nr = 0;
> + fflush(stdout);
> +}
Wouldn't it be easier to reason about what the caller/callee are
responsible for, if the function signature looked more like:
static size_t dispatch_calls(struct batch_options *opt,
...
struct queued_cmd cmd[], size_t nr)
{
size_t i;
for (i = 0; i < nr; i++)
... do stuff ...;
return updated_nr;
}
and make the caller do
nr = dispatch_calls(opt, ..., nr);
or if the function *never* leaves anything in the queue when it
returns, then
static void dispatch_calls(struct batch_options *opt,
...
struct queued_cmd cmd[], size_t nr)
{
size_t i;
for (i = 0; i < nr; i++)
... do stuff ...;
}
and make the caller do
dispatch_calls(opt, ..., nr);
nr = 0;
instead of passing a pointer to nr like the posted patch?
