Thread (3 messages) flat view 3 messages, 3 authors, 2016-06-15

Re: [PATCH 1/2] sideband.c: Use xmalloc() instead of variable-sized arrays.

From: Junio C Hamano <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 22:44:03

Johannes Sixt [off-list ref] writes:
quoted hunk
From: Johannes Sixt <redacted>

How come we got along with this not very portable construct for so long?
Probably because the array sizes were computed from the results of
strlen() of string constants. Anyway, a follow-up patch will make the
lengths really non-constant.

Signed-off-by: Johannes Sixt <redacted>
---
 sideband.c |   14 ++++++++++++--
 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/sideband.c b/sideband.c
index 756bbc2..513d7b3 100644
--- a/sideband.c
+++ b/sideband.c
@@ -19,7 +19,10 @@ int recv_sideband(const char *me, int in_stream, int out, int err)
 {
 	unsigned pf = strlen(PREFIX);
 	unsigned sf = strlen(SUFFIX);
-	char buf[pf + LARGE_PACKET_MAX + sf + 1];
+	char *buf, *save;
+
+	save = xmalloc(sf);
+	buf = xmalloc(pf + LARGE_PACKET_MAX + sf + 1);
I have to wonder if the malloc() overhead is small enough
compared to the network bandwidth to make a two malloc-free
pairs per packet a non-issue...
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help