On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 5:38 PM, Philip Martin
<philip.martin_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
> Ivan Zhakov <ivan_at_visualsvn.com> writes:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Philip Martin <philip_at_codematters.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Philip Martin <philip.martin_at_wandisco.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Ivan Zhakov <ivan_at_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
Received on 2013-08-15 16:35:24 CEST