On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 02:21:07AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> I think we _could_ do something like:
>
> for (i = nr; i < list->nr; i++) {
> if (list->items[i].util)
> BUG("truncated string list item has non-NULL util field");
> }
>
> though that is technically tighter than we need to be (it could be an
> unowned util field, after all; we don't know what it means here). So I'm
> inclined to leave your patch as-is.
I think there are two ways to do it, either:
- something like what you wrote above, perhaps with an additional
`free_util` bit on the string_list itself (which might make it
convenient to drop all of the `free_util` parameters that permeate
its API)
- have string_list_setlen() take a `free_util` argument itself, in
which case your code would change to:
if (free_util) {
for (i = nr; i < list->nr; i++)
free(list->items[i].util)
}
> This would all be easier if the string_list had a field for "we own the
> util fields, too" just like it has strdup_strings. Or even a free-ing
> function. But instead we have ad-hoc solutions like "free_util" and
> string_list_clear_func(). But that's really outside the scope of your
> series. </rant> :)
;-).
Thanks,
Taylor
