On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 04:44:44PM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 08:41:20AM +0100, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
>
> > > @@ -72,11 +73,14 @@ static const char *unquote_comment(struct strbuf *outbuf, const char *in)
> > > take_next_literally = 1;
> > > continue;
> > > case '(':
> > > - in = unquote_comment(outbuf, in);
> > > + strbuf_addch(outbuf, '(');
> > > + depth++;
> > > continue;
> > > case ')':
> > > strbuf_addch(outbuf, ')');
> > > - return in;
> > > + if (!--depth)
> > > + return in;
> > > + continue;
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
> > > I doubt it's a big deal either way, but if it's that easy to do it might
> > > be worth it.
> >
> > Isn't this only protecting against unbalanced braces? That might be a
> > sensible check to do regardless, but does it protect against recursion
> > blowing the stack if you just happen to have many opening braces?
> >
> > Might be I'm missing something.
>
> It protects against recrusion blowing the stack because it removes the
> recursive call to unquote_comment(). ;)
Doh. Of course it does, I completely missed the removals.
> The "depth" stuff is there because without recursion, we have to know
> when we've hit the correct closing paren (as opposed to an embedded
> one).
Yes, makes sense now. The patches look good to me, thanks!
Patrick
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
