artag...@apache.org wrote on Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 07:52:55 -0000: > Author: artagnon > Date: Wed Sep 29 07:52:55 2010 > New Revision: 1002503 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1002503&view=rev > Log: > svnrdump: dump_editor: Avoid duplicating strings unnecessarily > > * subversion/svnrdump/dump_editor.c > > (open_directory, close_directory, make_dir_baton): Instead of first > allocating `copyfrom_path` in `pool` and then copying it to > `eb->pool`, allocate it in `eb->pool` in the first place. > > Modified: > subversion/trunk/subversion/svnrdump/dump_editor.c > > Modified: subversion/trunk/subversion/svnrdump/dump_editor.c > URL: > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/trunk/subversion/svnrdump/dump_editor.c?rev=1002503&r1=1002502&r2=1002503&view=diff > ============================================================================== > --- subversion/trunk/subversion/svnrdump/dump_editor.c (original) > +++ subversion/trunk/subversion/svnrdump/dump_editor.c Wed Sep 29 07:52:55 > 2010 > @@ -143,8 +143,7 @@ make_dir_baton(const char *path, > new_db->eb = eb; > new_db->parent_dir_baton = pb; > new_db->abspath = abspath; > - new_db->copyfrom_path = copyfrom_path ? > - apr_pstrdup(pool, copyfrom_path) : NULL; > + new_db->copyfrom_path = copyfrom_path;
Does this function now assume that COPYFROM_PATH has a certain lifetime? If so, should that assumption go in the docstring? > new_db->copyfrom_rev = copyfrom_rev; > new_db->added = added; > new_db->written_out = FALSE;
