From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 20:52:00 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] Add xmallocz()
Message-ID: <7vwrz4y4gf.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <7v1vhczj95.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

> I'd rather see the function lose the NUL termination; if that makes the
> behaviour inconsistent with its name, perhaps it is better to rename the
> function; perhaps xmalloc1() to denote that it overallocates by one?

Actually I take that back---all the callers do benefit from the allocator
giving a buffer that is pre-terminated with NUL.

We can also lose "buf[size] = 0" from unpack_sha1_rest() patch.