On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Ramkumar Ramachandra
<artagnon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The @-parsing loop unnecessarily checks for the sequence "@{" from
> len - 2 unnecessarily. We can safely check from len - 4: write out a
> comment justifying this.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> sha1_name.c | 18 +++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/sha1_name.c b/sha1_name.c
> index 3820f28..be1d12c 100644
> --- a/sha1_name.c
> +++ b/sha1_name.c
> @@ -445,7 +445,23 @@ static int get_sha1_basic(const char *str, int len, unsigned char *sha1)
> /* basic@{time or number or -number} format to query ref-log */
> reflog_len = at = 0;
> if (len && str[len-1] == '}') {
> - for (at = len-2; at >= 0; at--) {
> + /* str = @}
> + * ^
> + * len - 2; expression is senseless
> + *
> + * str = @{}
> + * ^
> + * len - 3; expression is still senseless
> + *
> + * str = @{.}
> + * ^
> + * len - 4 where . is any character; expression
> + * is worth investigating
> + *
> + * Therefore, if str ends with }, search three
> + * characters earlier for @{
> + */
I think this comment is overkill.
> + for (at = len - 4; at >= 0; at--) {
The change seems OK to me, but there's no need to explain where you
are starting, and if there's a need:
/* start from where reflogs can start: @{.} */
Does the trick nicely.
> if (str[at] == '@' && str[at+1] == '{') {
> if (!upstream_mark(str + at, len - at)) {
> reflog_len = (len-1) - (at+2);
> --
--
Felipe Contreras
--
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