On 01/03/2018 17:20, Alex Williamson wrote:
>> basename(3) and dirname(3) modify their argument and may return
>> pointers to statically allocated memory which may be overwritten by
>> subsequent calls.
>> g_path_get_basename and g_path_get_dirname have no such issues, and
>> therefore more preferable.
> I think it's quite a bit arguable whether it's preferable, afaict there
> are no bugs fixed here.  The basic functions are being used correctly
> and are more conservative of memory usage than the glib variants.  In
> several cases below the basic functions seem far more efficient and we
> don't need to worry about freeing unnecessarily allocated memory, the
> diffstat seems to attest to this.  Is the inefficiency and possibility
> of leaking unintentionally allocated memory a statistical improvement
> over the claimed perils of these absolutely standard and well known
> functions?
> I know mine is a losing battle against glib, but the changelog might as
> well just say "Succumb to glib" because I fail to see that there's
> actually an improvement here.  If Paolo wants to take this,
> Acked-by: Alex Williamson <alex.william...@redhat.com>

Fair enough, I'll apply only the obvious cases like g_strdup(basename()).


Reply via email to