On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 06:21:24AM +0000, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> It might be an easier and safer fix to define that strbuf_init()
> to always have allocation. Use of a strbuf in the code _and_
> not adding any contents to the buffer should be an exception and
> avoiding malloc()/free() for that special case feels optimizing
> for the wrong case.
>
> However, there are strbuf instances that are not initialized
> (i.e. in BSS or initialized by declaring with STRBUF_INIT), so
> we still need to handle (.len == 0 && .alloc == 0) case
> specially anyway.
I can see a way, that would need special proof-reading of the strbuf
module, but should not harm its users, that would be to change
STRBUF_INIT to work this way:
{ .buf = "", .len = 0, .alloc = 0 }
It needs to make strbuf_grow and strbuf_release check for ->alloc
before doing anything stupid.
Though we may have some bits of code that rely on .buf being NULL if
nothing happened. I tried to track them down, but some may remain.
If you agree with this change, that would solve most of the issues
with almost no cost, then I'll propose a new patch with this change.
--
·O· Pierre Habouzit
··O madcoder@xxxxxxxxxx
OOO http://www.madism.org
Attachment:
pgp5OeaIywd5p.pgp
Description: PGP signature
