Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> writes: > Tanay Abhra <tanay...@gmail.com> writes: > >> - if (cb.value) >> - strbuf_addstr(buf, cb.value); >> + strbuf_addstr(buf, v); >> + free((char*)v); > > In this cast, I smell an API mistake to insist an extra constness to > the output parameter of git_config_get_string() in [3/4] of the > previous series. Unlike the underlying git_config_get_value(), > which lets the caller peek into the internal cached copy, the caller > of git_config_get_string() is given its own copy, and I do not > offhand see a good reason to forbid the caller from modifying it.
Indeed. My suggestion to change the declaration of char * variables actually seem like a workaround for an API mistake after reading this. (well, actually, the declaration could be modified if we think it brings any new safety, but that should be another topic) -- Matthieu Moy http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
