2016-03-28 22:50 GMT+08:00 Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com>:
> 惠轶群 <huiyi...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> After read the source code of strbuf more carefully, I get the conclusion
>> that if a strbuf is initialized with STRBUF_INIT but is not used, there is
>> no need to release it. Is it true?
>
> If it is initialized with STRBUF_INIT and never used, there is no
> reason for the variable to exist ;-)
I mean, if some developer return before the strbuf is used, there seems
no need to release the strbuf according to the current implementation.
But I'm not sure whether this is suitable for the abstraction of strbuf.
For example:
const char *enter_repo(const char *path, int strict)
{
static struct strbuf validated_path = STRBUF_INIT;
static struct strbuf used_path = STRBUF_INIT;
if (!path)
return NULL; // no need to release, right?
...
}
> Leaving the variable in the code, and not calling release on it at
> the end, would be OK (i.e. there is no leak) today, but may invite
> future bugs (e.g. people may use the variable to tentatively build
> their string before the function returns to leave the scope of the
> variable without adding _release() themselves).
--
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
