[GvR] > I disagree with making the hack of setting list->allocated = -1 an > official part of the list object API. Okay. > Since you have ignored repeated requests for real-life examples of > code that messes with ob_item outside the core, Haven't found any. Initially, I thought there were because the guard was getting tripped. Now, it looks like Hye-Shik's NULL check is sufficient. > let's keep the > 'allocated' field an internal detail of the list implementation. Yes. > Then > I can ignore the other posts about binary (in)compatibility too. :-) Right. [Armin] > BUT there is something that the patch does wrong: it never reclaims memory > from the list, unlike the NRESIZE trick which used to realloc with a > smaller > size occasionally. Yes. I had already caught that and sent in a change to Hye-Shik to make sure downward resizing can happen. Also, I'll incorporate the minor fixups you sent in. Any further adventures should probably be done as a separate patch (don't change too many things at once). Raymond
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4