On 24 August 2017 at 20:29, Brandon Casey wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 9:52 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Brandon Casey writes:
>>
>>> Ah, you probably meant something like this:
>>>
>>>const char strbuf_slopbuf = '\0';
>>>
>>> which gcc will apparently place in the read-only segment. I
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 9:52 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Brandon Casey writes:
>
>> Ah, you probably meant something like this:
>>
>>const char strbuf_slopbuf = '\0';
>>
>> which gcc will apparently place in the read-only segment. I did not know
>> that.
>
> Yes but I highly suspect that it
Brandon Casey writes:
> Ah, you probably meant something like this:
>
>const char strbuf_slopbuf = '\0';
>
> which gcc will apparently place in the read-only segment. I did not know
> that.
Yes but I highly suspect that it would be very compiler dependent
and not something the language law
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 3:24 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Brandon Casey writes:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>> Brandon Casey writes:
>>>
So is there any reason why didn't do something like the following in
the first place?
>>>
>>> My guess is that we di
Brandon Casey writes:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Brandon Casey writes:
>>
>>> So is there any reason why didn't do something like the following in
>>> the first place?
>>
>> My guess is that we didn't bother; if we cared, we would have used a
>> single instance
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Brandon Casey wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Brandon Casey wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>> Brandon Casey writes:
>>>
So is there any reason why didn't do something like the following in
the first place?
>
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Brandon Casey wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Brandon Casey writes:
>>
>>> So is there any reason why didn't do something like the following in
>>> the first place?
>>
>> My guess is that we didn't bother; if we cared, we would
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Brandon Casey writes:
>
>> So is there any reason why didn't do something like the following in
>> the first place?
>
> My guess is that we didn't bother; if we cared, we would have used a
> single instance of const char in a read-only segm
Brandon Casey writes:
> So is there any reason why didn't do something like the following in
> the first place?
My guess is that we didn't bother; if we cared, we would have used a
single instance of const char in a read-only segment, instead of
such a macro.
> diff --git a/strbuf.h b/strbuf.h
On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 10:43 AM, Martin Ågren wrote:
> strbuf_setlen(., 0) writes '\0' to sb.buf[0], where buf is either
> allocated and unique to sb, or the global slopbuf. The slopbuf is meant
> to provide a guarantee that buf is not NULL and that a freshly
> initialized buffer contains the emp
Martin Ågren writes:
> On 23 August 2017 at 19:24, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Martin Ågren writes:
>>
>>> strbuf_setlen(., 0) writes '\0' to sb.buf[0], where buf is either
>>> allocated and unique to sb, or the global slopbuf. The slopbuf is meant
>>> to provide a guarantee that buf is not NULL a
On 23 August 2017 at 19:24, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Martin Ågren writes:
>
>> strbuf_setlen(., 0) writes '\0' to sb.buf[0], where buf is either
>> allocated and unique to sb, or the global slopbuf. The slopbuf is meant
>> to provide a guarantee that buf is not NULL and that a freshly
>> initializ
Martin Ågren writes:
> strbuf_setlen(., 0) writes '\0' to sb.buf[0], where buf is either
> allocated and unique to sb, or the global slopbuf. The slopbuf is meant
> to provide a guarantee that buf is not NULL and that a freshly
> initialized buffer contains the empty string, but it is not suppose
strbuf_setlen(., 0) writes '\0' to sb.buf[0], where buf is either
allocated and unique to sb, or the global slopbuf. The slopbuf is meant
to provide a guarantee that buf is not NULL and that a freshly
initialized buffer contains the empty string, but it is not supposed to
be written to. That strbuf
14 matches
Mail list logo