Duy Nguyen <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 12:26 AM, Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> +static int grep_cache(struct cache_entry *ce, void *cb_data)
>> {
>> - int hit = 0;
>> - int nr;
>> - read_cache();
>> + struct grep_opts *opts = cb_data;
>>
>> - for (nr = 0; nr < active_nr; nr++) {
>> - struct cache_entry *ce = active_cache[nr];
>> - if (!S_ISREG(ce->ce_mode))
>> - continue;
>> - if (!match_pathspec_depth(pathspec, ce->name, ce_namelen(ce), 0, NULL))
>> - continue;
>> - /*
>> - * If CE_VALID is on, we assume worktree file and its cache entry
>> - * are identical, even if worktree file has been modified, so use
>> - * cache version instead
>> - */
>> - if (cached || (ce->ce_flags & CE_VALID) || ce_skip_worktree(ce)) {
>> - if (ce_stage(ce))
>> - continue;
>> - hit |= grep_sha1(opt, ce->sha1, ce->name, 0, ce->name);
>> - }
>> - else
>> - hit |= grep_file(opt, ce->name);
>> - if (ce_stage(ce)) {
>> - do {
>> - nr++;
>> - } while (nr < active_nr &&
>> - !strcmp(ce->name, active_cache[nr]->name));
>> - nr--; /* compensate for loop control */
>> - }
>> - if (hit && opt->status_only)
>> - break;
>> - }
>> - return hit;
>> + if (!S_ISREG(ce->ce_mode))
>> + return 0;
>> + if (!match_pathspec_depth(opts->pathspec, ce->name, ce_namelen(ce), 0, NULL))
>> + return 0;
>
> You do a match_pathspec_depth here..
>
>> @@ -895,10 +887,21 @@ int cmd_grep(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
>> } else if (0 <= opt_exclude) {
>> die(_("--[no-]exclude-standard cannot be used for tracked contents."));
>> } else if (!list.nr) {
>> + struct grep_opts opts;
>> + struct filter_opts *filter_opts = xmalloc(sizeof(*filter_opts));
>> +
>> if (!cached)
>> setup_work_tree();
>>
>> - hit = grep_cache(&opt, &pathspec, cached);
>> + memset(filter_opts, 0, sizeof(*filter_opts));
>> + filter_opts->pathspec = &pathspec;
>> + opts.opt = &opt;
>> + opts.pathspec = &pathspec;
>> + opts.cached = cached;
>> + opts.hit = 0;
>> + read_cache_filtered(filter_opts);
>> + for_each_cache_entry(grep_cache, &opts);
>
> And here again inside for_each_cache_entry. In the worst case that
> could turn into 2 expensive fnmatch instead of one. Is this conversion
> worth it? Note that match_pathspec is just a deprecated version of
> match_pathspec_depth. They basically do the same thing.
Right, the match_pathspec_depth should in builtin/grep.c should be
removed, it's unnecessary when using for_each_index_entry. Thanks for
spotting it. Other than that I still think the change makes sense.
--
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