Re: [PATCH] branch: reset instead of release a strbuf

Jeff King writes: >> /** >> * Release a string buffer and the memory it used. You should not use the >> - * string buffer after using this function, unless you initialize it again. >> + * string buffer after using this function. >> */ >> extern void strbuf_release(struct

Re: [PATCH] branch: reset instead of release a strbuf

On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 03:24:14PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Here's a patch to address the surprising strbuf.h advice. > > -- >8 -- > Subject: strbuf: do not encourage init-after-release > > strbuf_release already leaves the strbuf in a valid, initialized > state, so there is not need to

Re: [PATCH] branch: reset instead of release a strbuf

Hi, Stefan Beller wrote: > Our documentation advises to not re-use a strbuf, after strbuf_release > has been called on it. Use the proper reset instead. > > Reviewed-by: Jonathan Nieder This is indeed Reviewed-by: Jonathan Nieder Thank you. >

[PATCH] branch: reset instead of release a strbuf

Our documentation advises to not re-use a strbuf, after strbuf_release has been called on it. Use the proper reset instead. Currently 'strbuf_release' releases and re-initializes the strbuf, so it is safe, but slow. 'strbuf_reset' only resets the internal length variable, such that this could

Re: [PATCH] branch: reset instead of release a strbuf

Hi, Stefan Beller wrote: > Our documentation advises to not re-use a strbuf, after strbuf_release > has been called on it. Use the proper reset instead. I'm super surprised at this documentation. strbuf_release maintains the invariant that a strbuf is always usable (i.e., that we do not have

[PATCH] branch: reset instead of release a strbuf

Our documentation advises to not re-use a strbuf, after strbuf_release has been called on it. Use the proper reset instead. Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller --- Maybe one of the #leftoverbits is to remove the re-init call in release and see what breaks? (And then fixing up more