Hi,
Le Monday 25 May 2009, Johannes Schindelin a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 25 May 2009, Johannes Sixt wrote:
> > Christian Couder schrieb:
> > > +static void unparse_commit_list(struct commit_list *list)
> > > +{
> > > + for (; list; list = list->next)
> > > + unparse_commit(list->item);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +void unparse_commit(struct commit *item)
> > > +{
> > > + item->object.flags = 0;
> > > + item->object.used = 0;
> > > + if (item->object.parsed) {
> > > + item->object.parsed = 0;
> > > + if (item->parents) {
> > > + unparse_commit_list(item->parents);
> > > + free_commit_list(item->parents);
> > > + item->parents = NULL;
> > > + }
> > > + }
> > > +}
> >
> > I see a recursion here. Could this not overflow the stack if there is a
> > long ancestry chain?
>
> You mean tail recursion, i.e. something like
>
> void unparse_commit(struct commit *item)
> {
> item->object.flags = 0;
> item->object.used = 0;
> while (item->object.parsed) {
> struct commit *first;
>
> item->object.parsed = 0;
> if (!item->parents)
> break;
> if (item->parents->next)
> unparse_commit_list(item->parents->next);
> first = item->parents->item;
> free_commit_list(item->parents);
> item->parents = NULL;
> item = first;
> }
> }
Yes, it is better like this. Thanks and sorry about responding late.
> However, I am a bit concerned that this function is dangerous, as it just
> assumes that there is no reference to the commits left, which assumption
> is _very_ easy to break by mistake.
Anyway I will send a 2 patch series that will use clear_commit_marks instead
of this function.
Thanks,
Christian.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html