From: Antoine Pelisse <apelisse@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2013 12:11:06 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] match_basename: use strncmp instead of strcmp
Message-ID: <CALWbr2w+HdsOJAXF3974=vx+BtxgCC=bKHetE=ptXTwv7_L0pg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACsJy8A4+2t=PMJ+iSFFz-fafkAHYGvm6G4M-qpiO9674sanEQ@mail.gmail.com>

>> By the way, if we know the length of the string, we could use memcmp.
>> This one is allowed to compare 4-bytes at a time (he doesn't care
>> about end of string). This is true because the value of the length
>> parameter is no longer "at most".
>
> We still need to worry about access violation after NUL when two
> strings have different lengths. That could be avoided in this
> particular case, but I think it's too fragile.

Why would we need to compare if the strings don't have the same length
? We already do that in combine-diff.c:append_lost().