Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > On Friday 06 April 2012 18:41:46 Jim Meyering wrote: >> Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: >> > we remember the first and last bad name here, not all the bad names of the >> > last patch (bad[0] is never cleared), so that's a bug. >> >> Really? Why? It's static, so not a real leak. >> >> It's the same code as before, but without the use-after-free. >> I see no harm (nor particular benefit) in retaining the first >> invalid name in bad[0]. > > That was too unclear, sorry. The new code doesn't introduce a bug, the bug is > already there. > > I can imagine two different behaviors: either we only report each invalid name > exactly once, globally; or we treat each patch exactly the same. Behavior one > would require to remember all bad names. I don't think this is needed or > useful, and I would prefer behavior two. I was assuming that this is what the > code implements, but it doesn't: it won't report the first invalid name ever > again. > > (The invalid name could be something generic like ".."; it may well be that > every patch in an input file has the same broken patch header. IMO we should > report problems like that every time.) > > Does this kind of thinking make sense to you?
That clarifies it. Thanks.
