On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 12:38 AM Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 06:34:55PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 03:02:24PM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > > > +/* > > > + * Add the given bytes to the buffer. Returns 0 on success, > > > + * REFTABLE_OUT_OF_MEMORY_ERROR on allocation failure. > > > + */ > > > +int reftable_buf_add(struct reftable_buf *buf, const void *data, size_t len); > > > > Is there a reason that data is a void-pointer here and not a const char > > *? > > Only that it emulates `strbuf_add()`, which also uses a void pointer. The reason for that is because strbuf is a generic byte-array which may contain embedded NULs, and the `const void *` plus `len` emphasizes this property, whereas `const char *` would imply a C-string with no embedded NULs. (strbuf also happens to ensure that the contained byte-array ends with NUL so that the .buf member can be used safely with any function accepting a C-string, but that is a convenience for the common case when it does not contain embedded NULs, not a promise that there won't be embedded NULs, hence `const void *` rather than `cont char *`.)
