Joe Orton wrote: > > If the API guarantee is "may allocate memory on failure" then the fix is > bad and should be reverted; the caller will have to do the > create/destroy dance anyway so it's needless overhead whether large or > small. > > If the API guarantee is "will not allocate memory on failure" then > clearly this fix is necessary. I think this option makes more sense.
Ok - reading Mladen's and your comments, I'll agree the extra copy is warrented, let's proceed on your plan... * revert the original patch from 0.9, 1.2 branches for the moment * let this patch settle a bit * backport correct/complete patch Or did I misunderstand you? Bill
