Re: [PATCH 4/4] worktree add: let worktree_basename() return string copy

From: René Scharfe <l.s.r@web.de>
Date: Aug 26, 2026, 04:37 UTC
Message-ID: <18e65a59-2d33-4f47-a5eb-ca5971cec482@web.de>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqld9uklud.fsf@gitster.g>

On 8/25/26 10:04 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 18 quoted lines

> René Scharfe <l.s.r@web.de> writes:
> 
>> worktree_basename() requires callers to do pointer arithmetic to get the
>> actual basename.  Simplify them by doing the calculations in the
>> function and returning a copy of the basename directly.
> 
> OK.
> 
>> Remind programmers to free the result by renaming the function to
>> worktree_basename_dup().  Two already do; convert the remaining one from
> 
> This is a bit surprising, depending on what "do" refers to, as I
> read it to mean "Two callers already free what is returned by the
> worktree_basename() function", which cannot be the case (or they
> would be segfaulting already).  So I must have misunderstood this
> sentence.  I count three callers of the function, so two do
> something while the other one that needs conversion does something
> else.

It's confusing because I changed "callers" to "programmers" last minute and forgot to adjust the next sentence.

>> resetting a shared strbuf to freeing the allocated string, which
>> requires the same number of lines, but no arithmetic.  The added
>> allocation is negligible because it's small and there's only one per run
>> of "git worktree add".

Show 8 quoted lines

> So going back to the confusing part of the log message,
> 
>     Remind ... to worktree_basename_dup().  Among the three callers
>     of worktree_basename(), two immediately make copies of the
>     returned string before using and freeing it, which makes for an
>     easy conversion.  Convert the other one from resetting ...
> 
> or something like that, perhaps?

Yes.

René