On Sun, Feb 25, 2024 at 4:00 PM Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 25, 2024 at 01:41:30PM -0500, Eric Sunshine wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 25, 2024 at 1:28 PM René Scharfe <l.s.r@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Am 25.02.24 um 19:05 schrieb Eric Sunshine:
> > > > Taking into consideration the commit message warning about string
> > > > constants, would it make sense to update the comment to mention that
> > > > limitation?
> > >
> > > I think the temptation to pass a string pointer is low -- if only
> > > because there aren't any in this file. But adding such a warning
> > > can't hurt, so yeah, why not?
> >
> > The patch just posted[1] by SZEDER reminded me that, on this project,
> > we assume that the compiler is smart enough to replace
> > `strlen("string-literal")` with the constant `15`, so rather than
> > worrying about updating comment to mention the sizeof() limitation,
> > you could perhaps just use `strlen(string)` instead of
> > `sizeof(string)-1`?
>
> That would defeat the advertised purpose that we can handle embedded
> NULs, though. Whereas with sizeof(), I think a literal like "foo\0bar"
> would still have length 8.
True. Sorry for the noise.
