From: Brandon Casey <drafnel@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 22:11:26 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] strbuf_setlen: don't write to strbuf_slopbuf
Message-ID: <CA+sFfMf7nerBhm5jZ+sDJdGbTbLz_JXyqkSPGOA8o9mOE-7Khg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+sFfMdMgrGBhECegBe09c38nRM+Zt5JK4gJaZ96DO-9zC-8qA@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Brandon Casey <drafnel@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Brandon Casey <drafnel@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> Brandon Casey <drafnel@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> So is there any reason why didn't do something like the following in
>>>> the first place?
>>>
>>> My guess is that we didn't bother; if we cared, we would have used a
>>> single instance of const char in a read-only segment, instead of
>>> such a macro.
>>
>> I think you mean something like this:
>>
>>    const char * const strbuf_slopbuf = "";

Hmm, apparently it is sufficient to mark our current strbuf_slopbuf
array as const and initialize it with a static string to trigger its
placement into the read-only section by gcc (and clang).

   const char strbuf_slopbuf[1] = "";

-Brandon