On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 06:46:33PM -0500, Eric Sunshine wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 4:35 PM Taylor Blau <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 03:53:10PM +0100, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
> > > +static void test_reftable_stack_add_performs_auto_compaction(void)
> > > +{
> > > + char name[100];
> > > + snprintf(name, sizeof(name), "branch%04d", i);
> > > + ref.refname = name;
> >
> > Is there a reason that we have to use snprintf() here and not a strbuf?
> >
> > I would have expected to see something like:
> >
> > struct strbuf buf = STRBUF_INIT;
> > /* ... */
> > strbuf_addf(&buf, "branch%04d", i);
> > ref.refname = strbuf_detach(&buf, NULL);
>
> If I'm reading the code correctly, this use of strbuf would leak each
> time through the loop.
>
> > I guess it doesn't matter too much, but I think if we can avoid using
> > snprintf(), it's worth doing. If we must use snprintf() here, we should
> > probably use Git's xsnprintf() instead.
>
> xstrfmt() from strbuf.h would be even simpler if the intention is to
> allocate a new string which will be freed later.
>
> In this case, though, assuming I understand the intent, I think the
> more common and safe idiom in this codebase is something like this:
>
> struct strbuf name = STRBUF_INIT;
> strbuf_addstr(&name, "branch");
> size_t len = name.len;
> for (...) {
> strbuf_setlen(&name, len);
> strbuf_addf(&name, "%04d", i);
> ref.refname = name.buf;
> ...
> }
> strbuf_release(&name);
Yeah, I'll convert this to use a `struct strbuf` instead. But instead of
tracking the length I'll just use a `strbuf_reset()` followed by
`strbuf_addf("branch-%04d")`. It's simpler to read and we don't need to
squeeze every last drop of performance out of this loop anyway.
Patrick
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
