"brian m. carlson" <sandals@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 04:02:22PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> "brian m. carlson" <sandals@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>> > @@ -314,7 +314,7 @@ static int threeway_callback(int n, unsigned long mask, unsigned long dirmask, s
>> > }
>> >
>> > if (same_entry(entry+0, entry+1)) {
>> > - if (entry[2].sha1 && !S_ISDIR(entry[2].mode)) {
>> > + if (entry[2].oid->hash && !S_ISDIR(entry[2].mode)) {
>>
>> Thanks for a warning in the cover letter.
>>
>> "if (entry[2].oid && !S_ISDIR(entry[2].mode)" would be a faithful
>> conversion, wouldn't it?
>
> Yes, I think that would be a better conversion. I'll reroll after
> waiting for further comments.
Thanks. A simple general rule to follow is that anything that
assumed entry.sha1 is non-NULL should become entry.oid->hash, while
anyting that checked if entry.sha1 is NULL or not should become a
check on entry.oid, I think. Even though offsetof(oid.hash) might
happen to be zero, compiler writers are crazy and "optimize" the
above entry[2].oid->hash saying "you are dereerencing into the hash
field without first checking if oid pointer is NULL, so we'd assume
that you know oid is not NULL here--which makes this always true so
we won't even do any check and only check entry[2].mode"..
--
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