Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes:
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 04:06:52PM +0200, Christian Couder wrote:
>
>> > This allocation should be name_len + 1 for the NUL-terminator, no?
>>
>> I wondered about that too, but as struct name_decoration is defined like
>> this:
>>
>> struct name_decoration {
>> struct name_decoration *next;
>> int type;
>> char name[1];
>> };
>>
>> the .name field of this struct already has one char, so the allocation
>> above should be ok.
>
> Yeah, you're right. I would argue it should just be FLEX_ARRAY for
> consistency with other spots, though (in which case add_name_decoration
> needs to be updated with a +1).
>
> Running "git grep '^ char [^ ]*\[[01]]' -- '*.[ch]'" shows that this
> is one of only two spots that don't use FLEX_ARRAY (and the other has a
> comment explaining why not).
Good digging, and I agree that it should use the FLEX_ARRAY for
consistency.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
