Re: [PATCH] GSoC 2014 Microproject 1 rewrite skip_prefix() as loop

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Thanks for the reply,
I was unable to get git send-email working. Now its working, I'll
resend the patch.
I ran all the tests, they are working properly.
About the comment, I meant, there is a similar function
strbuf.c:starts_with() which does the exact same job, but it returns 0
or 1.
I just changed it to return a (const char *) accordingly.

On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Michael Haggerty <mhagger@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 02/26/2014 05:46 PM, Faiz Kothari wrote:
>> I am Faiz Kothari, I am a GSoC aspirant and want to contribute to git.
>> I am submitting the patch in reponse to Microproject 1,
>> rewrite git-compat-util.h:skip_prefix() as a loop.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Faiz Kothari <faiz.off93@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> The subject of your email plus the part above the "---" line will be
> taken directly to be used as the commit message.  So it should not
> include information that is inappropriate for a commit message.
>
> You can put such information directly below the "---" line.
>
> Please also see my comments below.
>
>> ---
>>  git-compat-util.h | 7 +++++--
>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/git-compat-util.h b/git-compat-util.h
>> index cbd86c3..bb2582a 100644
>> --- a/git-compat-util.h
>> +++ b/git-compat-util.h
>> @@ -357,8 +357,11 @@ extern int suffixcmp(const char *str, const char
>> *suffix);
>>
>>  static inline const char *skip_prefix(const char *str, const char
>> *prefix)
>
> The line above seems to have been broken by your email program.  It is
> important for efficiency reasons that patches be readable directly out
> of emails (e.g., by using "git am").  Please practice by sending the
> patch to yourself different ways until "git am" works on it correctly.
>
>>  {
>> -     size_t len = strlen(prefix);
>> -     return strncmp(str, prefix, len) ? NULL : str + len;
>> +     for (; ; str++, prefix++)
>> +             if (!*prefix)
>> +                     return str;//code same as strbuf.c:starts_with()
>
> We don't use "//" for comments, and please space things out the way
> other code does it.  But actually, IMO this particular comment doesn't
> really belong permanently in the code.  It rather belongs in the commit
> message, or in the discussion (under the "---"), or maybe it should be
> taken as an indication of a deeper problem (see below).
>
>> +             else if (*str != *prefix)
>> +                     return NULL;
>>  }
>>
>>  #if defined(NO_MMAP) || defined(USE_WIN32_MMAP)
>>
>
> The code itself looks correct.
>
> But, considering your comment, would it be appropriate for one of the
> functions to call the other?
>
> Michael
>
> --
> Michael Haggerty
> mhagger@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://softwareswirl.blogspot.com/
--
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




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]