On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Jeff King <p...@peff.net> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 04:50:20PM +0530, Karthik Nayak wrote: > >> > This caller never stores the return value, and it ends up leaking. So I >> > wonder if you wanted "static struct strbuf" in the first place (and that >> > would explain the strbuf_reset() in your function). >> >> Ah! Yes this should be 'static struct strbuf' indeed, I blindly copied >> Junio's >> suggestion. >> >> strbuf_detach() is also a better way to go. > > One of the other, though. If it's static, then you _don't_ want to > detach. >
Wait. Why not? since it gets added to the strbuf's within build_format() and that value is not needed again, why do we need to re-allocate? we can use the same variable again (i.e by keeping it as static). I'm sorry, but I didn't get why these two should be mutually exclusive? -- Regards, Karthik Nayak
