On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 07:46:28PM +0000, Phillip Wood wrote:
+ assert(nr == todo_list->nr);
If this assert fails we may have already had some out of bounds memory
accesses.
the loop could have run short, too.
but anyway, this isn't a runtime check, it's an assertion of a loop
invariant.
+ todo_list->alloc = nr;
FREE_AND_NULL(todo_list->items);
I think it would be cleaner to keep the original ordering and free the
old list before assigning todo_list->alloc
my reasoning is that it's closer to the assert which also refers to it,
and it really makes sense to have _that_ first. also, the value is more
likely to be still in a register at that point.
todo_list->items = items;
- todo_list->nr = nr;
- todo_list->alloc = alloc;
}
