On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 5:38 PM, Philip Martin <philip.mar...@wandisco.com> wrote: > Ivan Zhakov <i...@visualsvn.com> writes: > >> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Philip Martin <phi...@codematters.co.uk> >> wrote: >>> Philip Martin <philip.mar...@wandisco.com> writes: >>> >>>> Ivan Zhakov <i...@visualsvn.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> Good point. I'll fix it in separate commit. What do you think about >>>>> patch itself? >>>> >>>> Is there any reason for the static optimisation? Does performance >>>> matter? Why not simply format each time? >>> >>> Ah! You don't have a pool. >>> >> Yes, that is the problem. But I think we can change vtable for RA >> layer since it's not part of our API? > > Yes, the vtable is private and can be changed. > > For the original patch an optimising compiler is allowed to reorder the > call to apr_snprintf and the assignment to description. However since > description_buf is static it will initially be all null so even if there > is a thread race the returned buffer should always be a null-terminated > string. > I've added pool parameter to get_description() RA vtable callback and commited in Completed: r1514295. Thanks for review!
-- Ivan Zhakov CTO | VisualSVN | http://www.visualsvn.com
