From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8458020248 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 17:46:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728719AbfBZRq5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Feb 2019 12:46:57 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:58744 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1727416AbfBZRq5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Feb 2019 12:46:57 -0500 Received: (qmail 1099 invoked by uid 109); 26 Feb 2019 17:46:57 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with SMTP; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 17:46:57 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 30861 invoked by uid 111); 26 Feb 2019 17:47:12 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) SMTP; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 12:47:12 -0500 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 26 Feb 2019 12:46:55 -0500 Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 12:46:55 -0500 From: Jeff King To: Martin =?utf-8?B?w4VncmVu?= Cc: Git Mailing List , "brian m . carlson" Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] setup: fix memory leaks with `struct repository_format` Message-ID: <20190226174655.GE19606@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20190123055704.GA19601@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20190125195107.GA6520@sigill.intra.peff.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 08:21:07PM +0100, Martin Ågren wrote: > It's time to resurrect this thread. I've reworked this patch to avoid > the compound literal when re-initing a struct, and I've been going back > and forth on this point about having to initialize to `..._INIT` or risk > crashing. And I keep coming back to thinking that it's not *that* > different from how `STRBUF_INIT` works. > > There's the obvious difference that there aren't as many functions to > call, so there's certainly a difference in scale. And you'd think that > you'll always start with `read_...()`, but another potential first > function to call is `clear_...()` (see builtin/init-db.c), in which case > you better have used `..._INIT` first. > > I'm tempted to address this point by documenting as good as I can in the > .h-file that one has to use this initializer macro. I'll obviously > convert all users, so copy-paste programming should work fine... > > How does that sound to you? It sounds pretty good. -Peff