Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> writes:
> +static inline int hashcmp(const unsigned char *sha1, const unsigned char *sha2)
> {
> - return !memcmp(sha1, null_sha1, 20);
> + int i;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < 20; i++, sha1++, sha2++) {
> + if (*sha1 != *sha2) {
> + if (*sha1 < *sha2)
> + return -1;
> + return +1;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
This is very unfortunate, as it is so trivially correct and we shouldn't
have to do it. If the compiler does not use a good inlined memcmp(), this
patch may fly, but I fear it may hurt other compilers, no?
> +static inline int is_null_sha1(const unsigned char *sha1)
> {
> - return memcmp(sha1, sha2, 20);
> + const unsigned long long *sha1_64 = (void *)sha1;
> + const unsigned int *sha1_32 = (void *)sha1;
Can everybody do unaligned accesses just fine?
--
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