Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] Add xmallocz()

From: Ilari Liusvaara <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 23:13:48 +0200

On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 12:52:00PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]> writes:
> 
> > I'd rather see the function lose the NUL termination; if that makes the
> > behaviour inconsistent with its name, perhaps it is better to rename the
> > function; perhaps xmalloc1() to denote that it overallocates by one?
> 
> Actually I take that back---all the callers do benefit from the allocator
> giving a buffer that is pre-terminated with NUL.
> 
> We can also lose "buf[size] = 0" from unpack_sha1_rest() patch.

If that line would be next to xmalloc() line, I would have removed it, but
because it was beyound loop, I was worried that something might be done
to it (and was not in right mood to analyze the logic properly).

And yeah, that nul-termination in xmemdupz is not needed. Oops, missed
that.

-Ilari