Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org> writes: > On 14.02.2012 13:26, Julian Foad wrote: >> For review, please. >> >> We discovered some bugs recently [1,2] with use of svn_string.h functions, >> where space for the terminating null character was sometimes not being >> allocated. The attached patch file contains several changes in this area, >> which are all somewhat together although I'll commit them in two or more >> separate parts. In summary: >> >> * Introduce revved API svn_stringbuf_ensure2() that promises to make space >> for NUL. >> >> * Make the old svn_stringbuf_ensure() provide space for NUL even though it >> doesn't promise to do so, to help remaining buggy callers to 'just work', >> since doing so is harmless and it was our inconsistent API that led to the >> misunderstanding. > > Please explain again, why do we need the revved _ensure2 at all? Can you > think of any possible way that even marginally sane code would break if > we just fixed the docs and behaviour of _ensure?
I was thinking the same. What would break is somebody reading the new docs and writing code that fails when linked against existing svn_stringbuf_ensure. -- uberSVN: Apache Subversion Made Easy http://www.uberSVN.com
