Stephan Beyer <s-beyer@xxxxxxx> writes:
> @@ -43,15 +43,17 @@ static int count_distance(struct commit_list *entry)
> int nr = 0;
> struct commit_list *todo = NULL;
> commit_list_append(entry->item, &todo);
> + marker++;
>
> while (todo) {
> struct commit *commit = pop_commit(&todo);
>
> - if (!(commit->object.flags & (UNINTERESTING | COUNTED))) {
> + if (!(commit->object.flags & UNINTERESTING)
> + && node_data(commit)->marked != marker) {
Makes sense.
> @@ -123,10 +116,9 @@ static void show_list(const char *debug, int counted, int nr,
> const char *subject_start;
> int subject_len;
>
> - fprintf(stderr, "%c%c%c ",
> + fprintf(stderr, "%c%c ",
> (flags & TREESAME) ? ' ' : 'T',
> - (flags & UNINTERESTING) ? 'U' : ' ',
> - (flags & COUNTED) ? 'C' : ' ');
> + (flags & UNINTERESTING) ? 'U' : ' ');
As this one is for debugging, could we keep the output of 'C'
intact?
It is equivalent to
commit->util && node_data(commit)->marked == marker ? 'C' : ' '
right?
This makes me wonder if node_data(commit) should return NULL instead
of asserting on commit->util in [11/21], by the way. That would
make the above
node_data(commit) && node_data(commit)->marked == marker
? 'C' : ' '
which may be easier to read.
Another small thing I overlooked in [11/21] is that the parameter to
node_data() helper should not be called "elem", which is typically
the name used to point at an element on a linked list structure such
as commit_list. Call it "commit" instead, as that is typically the
way we call a single parameter/variable that appears in a function
that is "struct commit".
--
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