Am 11.09.2013 05:19, schrieb Jiang Xin:
> I tested 'relative_path' function using 'test-path-utils', and got the
> following result:
>
> $ ./test-path-utils relative_path 'C:/a/b' 'D:/x/y'
> ../../../C:/a/b
>
> $ ./test-path-utils relative_path '/a/b' 'x/y'
> ../..//a/b
>
> $ ./test-path-utils relative_path 'a/b' '/x/y'
> ../../../a/b
>
> For the first case, in and prefix are on different ROOT, and for the other
> two cases, one path is a relative path, and another is an absolute path.
>
> I write a patch to test whether two paths (in and prefix) have the same
> root. The result after applied the patch:
>
> $ ./test-path-utils relative_path 'C:/a/b' 'C:/x/y'
> ../../a/b
>
> $ ./test-path-utils relative_path 'C:/a/b' 'D:/x/y'
> C:/a/b
>
> $ ./test-path-utils relative_path '/a/b' 'x/y'
> /a/b
>
> $ ./test-path-utils relative_path 'a/b' '/x/y'
> a/b
>
>
> diff --git a/path.c b/path.c
> index 7f3324a..51f5d28 100644
> --- a/path.c
> +++ b/path.c
> @@ -441,6 +441,25 @@ int adjust_shared_perm(const char *path)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static int have_same_root(const char *path1, const char *path2)
> +{
> + /* for POSIX:
> +
> + return ((path1 && is_dir_sep(*path1)) ^
> + (path2 && is_dir_sep(*path2))) == 0;
> + */
> + return path1 && path2 && *path1 && *path2 && (
> + (is_dir_sep(*path1) &&
> + is_dir_sep(*path2)) ||
> + (*(path1+1) == ':' &&
> + *(path2+1) == ':' &&
> + !strncasecmp(path1, path2, 1)) ||
> + (!is_dir_sep(*path1) &&
> + !is_dir_sep(*path2) &&
> + *(path1+1) != ':' &&
> + *(path2+1) != ':'));
I think this can be simplified to
return path1 && path2 &&
is_absolute_path(path1) &&
is_absolute_path(path2) &&
!strncasecmp(path1, path2, 1);
which would not mistake a path D:/foo on Unix as an absolute path.
> +}
-- Hannes
--
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