Hi Calvin On 08/02/2023 22:54, Calvin Wan wrote:
+ } else { + if (opts->duplicate_output) + opts->duplicate_output(&pp->children[i].err, + strlen(pp->children[i].err.buf) - n,Looking at how this is used in patch 7 I think it would be better to pass a const char*, length pair rather than a struct strbuf*, offset pair. i.e. opts->duplicate_output(pp->children[i].err.buf + pp->children[i].err.len - n, n, ...) That would make it clear that we do not expect duplicate_output() to alter the buffer and would avoid the duplicate_output() having to add the offset to the start of the buffer to find the new data.I don't think that would work since pp->children[i].err.buf + pp->children[i].err.len - n wouldn't end up as a const char* unless I'm missing something?
You can still pass it to a function that takes a const char* though and change type of the callback to
typedef void (*duplicate_output_fn)(const char *out, size_t offset, void *pp_cb, void *pp_task_cb); Best Wishes Phillip
