Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > The add_pattern() function takes a pattern string, but neither makes a > copy of it nor takes ownership of the memory. So it is the caller's > responsibility to make sure the string hangs around as long as the > pattern_list which references it. Wow. That's an extremely bad API. I suspect that it long time ago did not aggressively "pre-parse" the given pattern string and kept the original copy in the struct (i.e., taking ownership), and these copies of the literal strings were made at the calling sites with the expectation that the API takes ownership of them, as most of the strings fed to add_pattern() are what we read from the environment into heap. > In the long run, we will also want to clean up this (undocumented!) > memory lifetime requirement of add_pattern(). But that can come in a > later patch; passing the string literals directly will be the right > thing either way. OK.
