Karthik Nayak <karthik....@gmail.com> writes:
> -static int list_tags(struct ref_filter *filter, struct ref_sorting *sorting)
> +static int list_tags(struct ref_filter *filter, struct ref_sorting *sorting,
> const char *format)
> {
> struct ref_array array;
> - char *format, *to_free = NULL;
> + char *to_free = NULL;
> int i;
format is const char * while to_free is non-const char * here.
> @@ -41,12 +41,14 @@ static int list_tags(struct ref_filter *filter, struct
> ref_sorting *sorting)
> if (filter->lines == -1)
> filter->lines = 0;
>
> + if (!format) {
> + if (filter->lines) {
> + format = xstrfmt("%s %%(contents:lines=%d)",
> + "%(align:15)%%(refname:short)%%(end)",
> filter->lines);
Hmmm, did this even pass tests and if so how? What are these double
%% doing before refname and end? Perhaps we do not have enough test
coverage?
> + to_free = format;
This assignment discards constness.
Take the result of xstrfmt() to to_free (which is a non-const
pointer) and then assigning it to format (which is a const pointer)
would work it around.
--
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
