Jeff Hostetler [off-list ref] writes:
Right, I think it would be fine to malloc it here, but I didn't
want to assume that everyone would think that.
I'll change it.
I agree with both of you that the code is unnice in its stack usage
and we want fix with malloc(), or something like that, but sorry, I
think I merged this round by mistake to 'next'.
As we won't be merging the topic to the upcoming release anyway, I
am willing to revert the merge to 'next' and requeue an updated one,
when it appears (I am also OK to see an incremental update, "oops,
no, we realize we don't want to have it on the stack" fix-up, if
this is the only glitch in the series that need to be fixed).
Thanks.
On 3/3/21 2:38 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jeff Hostetler [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
Right, I think it would be fine to malloc it here, but I didn't
want to assume that everyone would think that.
I'll change it.
I agree with both of you that the code is unnice in its stack usage
and we want fix with malloc(), or something like that, but sorry, I
think I merged this round by mistake to 'next'.
As we won't be merging the topic to the upcoming release anyway, I
am willing to revert the merge to 'next' and requeue an updated one,
when it appears (I am also OK to see an incremental update, "oops,
no, we realize we don't want to have it on the stack" fix-up, if
this is the only glitch in the series that need to be fixed).
Thanks.
I'm preparing a follow-on patch series to address Peff's comments
from Friday/Monday and yours from yesterday. I thought I'd send
it as a set of new changes to sit on top of what we have in "next"
if that would make things easier for you.
After the upcoming release we can talk about whether it would be
better for me to smash together the 2 series or not.
Jeff