RE: Proposal/Discussion: Turning parts of Git into libraries

[<rsbecker@nexbridge.com>]

On Thursday, March 23, 2023 7:35 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 5:30 PM <rsbecker@nexbridge.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thursday, March 23, 2023 7:22 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> >On Sat, Feb 18, 2023 at 5:12 AM Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 18/02/2023 01:59, demerphq wrote:
>> >> > On Sat, 18 Feb 2023 at 00:24, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Emily Shaffer <nasamuffin@google.com> writes:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> Basically, if this effort turns out not to be fruitful as a
>> >> >>> whole, I'd like for us to still have left a positive impact on the codebase.
>> >> >>> ...
>> >> >>> So what's next? Naturally, I'm looking forward to a spirited
>> >> >>> discussion about this topic - I'd like to know which concerns
>> >> >>> haven't been addressed and figure out whether we can find a way
>> >> >>> around them, and generally build awareness of this effort with the
>community.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On of the gravest concerns is that the devil is in the details.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> For example, "die() is inconvenient to callers, let's propagate
>> >> >> errors up the callchain" is an easy thing to say, but it would
>> >> >> take much more than "let's propagate errors up" to libify
>> >> >> something like
>> >> >> check_connected() to do the same thing without spawning a
>> >> >> separate process that is expected to exit with failure.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > What does "propagate errors up the callchain" mean?  One
>> >> > interpretation I can think of seems quite horrible, but another
>> >> > seems quite doable and reasonable and likely not even very
>> >> > invasive of the existing code:
>> >> >
>> >> > You can use setjmp/longjmp to implement a form of "try", so that
>> >> > errors dont have to be *explicitly* returned *in* the call chain.
>> >> > And you could probably do so without changing very much of the
>> >> > existing code at all, and maintain a high level of conceptual
>> >> > alignment with the current code strategy.
>> >>
>> >> Using setjmp/longjmp is an interesting suggestion, I think lua does
>> >> something similar to what you describe for perl. However I think
>> >> both of those use a allocator with garbage collection. I worry that
>> >> using longjmp in git would be more invasive (or result in more
>> >> memory leaks) as we'd need to to guard each allocation with some
>> >> code to clean it up and then propagate the error. That means we're
>> >> back to manually propagating errors up the call chain in many cases.
>> >
>> >We could just use talloc [1].
>>
>> talloc is not portable.
>
>What makes you say that?

talloc is not part of a POSIX standard I could find. Aside from that:

$ man talloc
(on NonStop) No manual entry for talloc
(on Cygwin) No manual entry for talloc

Just reporting my findings.