Re: [PATCH v3 20/23] try_remove_empty_parents(): don't trash argument contents
- From
Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
- Date
- Jan 2, 2017, 17:10 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20170102171043.ebfeaaylf4waq6co@sigill.intra.peff.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <9215973c-8db1-8f5a-2dc7-3a0137dd5c62@alum.mit.edu>
On Mon, Jan 02, 2017 at 05:27:59PM +0100, Michael Haggerty wrote:
Show 18 quoted lines
> > or something. But I doubt the single allocation is breaking the bank, > > and it has the nice side effect that callers can pass in a const string > > (I didn't check yet whether that enables further cleanups). > > The last patch in the series passes ref_update::refname to this > function, which is `const char *`. With your suggested change, either > that member would have to be made non-const, or it would have to be cast > to const at the `try_remove_empty_parents()` callsite. > > Making the member non-const would be easy, though it loses a tiny bit of > documentation and safety against misuse. Also, scribbling even > temporarily over that member would mean that this code is not > thread-safe (though it seems unlikely that we would ever bother making > it multithreaded). > > I think I prefer the current version because it loosens the coupling > between this function and its callers. But I don't mind either way if > somebody feels strongly about it.
OK, let's take what you have here, then.
> As an aside, I wonder whether we would be discussing this at all if we > had stack-allocated strbufs that could be used without allocating heap > memory in the usual case.
I'm not sure. We still pay the memcpy(), though I don't know how substantial that is compared to an allocation. For these small strings, probably not very.
-Peff