Junio C Hamano <[email protected]> writes: > Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <[email protected]> writes: > >> if (rev->rdiff1) { >> + struct diff_options opts; >> + memcpy(&opts, &rev->diffopt, sizeof(opts)); >> + opts.output_format &= ~(DIFF_FORMAT_DIFFSTAT | >> DIFF_FORMAT_SUMMARY); >> + >> fprintf_ln(rev->diffopt.file, "%s", rev->rdiff_title); >> show_range_diff(rev->rdiff1, rev->rdiff2, >> - rev->creation_factor, 1, &rev->diffopt); >> + rev->creation_factor, 1, &opts); > > I am not quite convinced if this shallow copy is a safe thing to do. > Quite honestly at this late in the release cycle, as a band-aid, I'd > rather see a simpler revert than a change like this that we have to > worry about what happens if/when show_range_diff() _thinks_ it is > done with the opts and ends up discarding resources (e.g. "FILE *") > that are shared with rev->diffopt that would still have to be used > later.
Well, let's take it anyway as-is, at least for today, as I notice show_range_diff() itself does another shallow copy, so we are not making anything dramatically worse. Thanks.
