artagnon_at_apache.org wrote on Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 07:52:55 -0000:
> Author: artagnon
> Date: Wed Sep 29 07:52:55 2010
> New Revision: 1002503
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1002503&view=rev
> Log:
> svnrdump: dump_editor: Avoid duplicating strings unnecessarily
>
> * subversion/svnrdump/dump_editor.c
>
> (open_directory, close_directory, make_dir_baton): Instead of first
> allocating `copyfrom_path` in `pool` and then copying it to
> `eb->pool`, allocate it in `eb->pool` in the first place.
>
> Modified:
> subversion/trunk/subversion/svnrdump/dump_editor.c
>
> Modified: subversion/trunk/subversion/svnrdump/dump_editor.c
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/trunk/subversion/svnrdump/dump_editor.c?rev=1002503&r1=1002502&r2=1002503&view=diff
> ==============================================================================
> --- subversion/trunk/subversion/svnrdump/dump_editor.c (original)
> +++ subversion/trunk/subversion/svnrdump/dump_editor.c Wed Sep 29 07:52:55 2010
> @@ -143,8 +143,7 @@ make_dir_baton(const char *path,
> new_db->eb = eb;
> new_db->parent_dir_baton = pb;
> new_db->abspath = abspath;
> - new_db->copyfrom_path = copyfrom_path ?
> - apr_pstrdup(pool, copyfrom_path) : NULL;
> + new_db->copyfrom_path = copyfrom_path;
Does this function now assume that COPYFROM_PATH has a certain lifetime?
If so, should that assumption go in the docstring?
> new_db->copyfrom_rev = copyfrom_rev;
> new_db->added = added;
> new_db->written_out = FALSE;
Received on 2010-09-29 10:04:18 CEST