On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 02:04:18PM -0500, William Rowe wrote: > 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?
Gah, just realised I never dealt with this, sorry :( Since this is really an attempt to make a new API guarantee, it is something that can only be done in a minor version bump, and would need to be done for the other implementations too. joe
