From: Erik Faye-Lund <kusmabite@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 23:03:47 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCHv6 1/4] Read (but not write) from $XDG_CONFIG_HOME/git/config file
Message-ID: <CABPQNSZuMBUa9bHwmCRDL-dGfRd8FofBf5YsmK=nuMu1iMbnMw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20120611185311.Horde.RALabXwdC4BP1iJ3aQ-w89A@webmail.minatec.grenoble-inp.fr>

On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 6:53 PM,  <nguyenhu@minatec.inpg.fr> wrote:
>
> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> a écrit :
>
>> Erik Faye-Lund <kusmabite@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> The awkward thing about doing this, is that the memory allocated by
>>> the strbuf cannot be reclaimed if you go with this. A pointer that has
>>> been adjusted (like cleanup_path can do) cannot be successfully fed to
>>> free.
>>
>>
>> Yeah, I wouldn't recommend doing that.  Either
>>
>>        path = strbuf_detach(&sb, NULL);
>>        retval = xstrdup(cleanup_path(path));
>>        free(path);
>>        return retval;
>>
>> or
>>
>>        path = xstrdup(cleanup_path(sb.buf));
>>        strbuf_release(&sb);
>>        return path;
>>
>> would be more sensible.
>
>
> Erik, what do you prefer ? You can have the final answer.
>

I think the latter is the neater one, but I don't really care too much
either way :)