On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 5:42 PM, Matthieu Moy
<Matthieu.Moy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> @@ -679,15 +682,20 @@ static int print_ref_list(int kinds, int detached, int verbose, int abbrev, stru
>> if (verbose)
>> maxwidth = calc_maxwidth(&ref_list, strlen(remote_prefix));
>>
>> - qsort(ref_list.list, ref_list.index, sizeof(struct ref_item), ref_cmp);
>> + index = ref_list.index;
>> +
>> + /* Print detached HEAD before sorting and printing the rest */
>> + if (detached && (ref_list.list[index - 1].kind == REF_DETACHED_HEAD) &&
>> + !strcmp(ref_list.list[index - 1].name, head)) {
>> + print_ref_item(&ref_list.list[index - 1], maxwidth, verbose, abbrev,
>> + 1, remote_prefix);
>> + index -= 1;
>> + }
>
> I think Eric already mentionned it, but I don't remember the conclusion
> and can't find it in the archives. Wouldn't it be cleaner to actually
> remove the detached head from the array (do "ref_list.index -= 1"
> instead of "index -= 1", and possibly free() what needs to be freed?
>
> If you did so, you wouldn't have any possible confusion between the
> local variable "index" and ref_list.index in the code below:
This is cleared out in [PATCH 6/8].
--
Regards,
Karthik Nayak
--
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