Hey Eric,
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 12:46 AM, Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Pranit Bauva <pranit.bauva@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 2:44 AM, Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Pranit Bauva <pranit.bauva@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> Reimplement `is_expected_rev` & `check_expected_revs` shell function in
>>>> C and add a `--check-expected-revs` subcommand to `git bisect--helper` to
>>>> call it from git-bisect.sh .
>>>> [...]
>>>> Signed-off-by: Pranit Bauva <pranit.bauva@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> diff --git a/builtin/bisect--helper.c b/builtin/bisect--helper.c
>>>> @@ -162,13 +162,44 @@ static int bisect_reset(const char *commit)
>>>> +static int is_expected_rev(const char *expected_hex)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct strbuf actual_hex = STRBUF_INIT;
>>>> + int res;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (strbuf_read_file(&actual_hex, git_path_bisect_expected_rev(), 0) < 0) {
>>>> + strbuf_release(&actual_hex);
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + strbuf_trim(&actual_hex);
>>>> + res = !strcmp(actual_hex.buf, expected_hex);
>>>> + strbuf_release(&actual_hex);
>>>> + return res;
>>>> +}
>>>
>>> Not worth a re-roll, but this could be re-structured to avoid having
>>> to remember to release the strbuf at all exits:
>>>
>>> struct strbuf actual_hex = ...;
>>> int res = 0;
>>>
>>> if (strbuf_read_file(...) >= 0) {
>>> strbuf_trim(...);
>>> res = !strcmp(...);
>>> }
>>> strbuf_release(...);
>>> return res;
>>>
>>> Alternately:
>>>
>>> if (strbuf_read_file(...) < 0)
>>> goto done;
>>>
>>> strbuf_trim(...);
>>> res = !strcmp(...);
>>>
>>> done:
>>> strbuf_release(...);
>>> return res;
>>>
>>> which is a bit less compact.
>>
>> I will avoid this for the reason that I will have to create a label
>> for a lot of functions. If I choose to do this for one function, I
>> think it would be more appropriate to do the same for other functions.
>> There would be a lot of functions in future which would be in the same
>> scenario and creating a separate label for each of them would be quite
>> tedious. What do you think?
>
> Not sure what you're talking about. Label names are not shared across
> functions. Anyhow, the first suggestion I presented above is more
> concise than the 'goto' version.
Yes I am aware of the fact that labels aren't shared across functions.
What I meant by "separate label" was that I will have to make a label
"fail" in each function. But I recently noticed that its used quite a
lot so I think it would be okay to use it. Will re-roll with using
labels and goto.
Regards,
Pranit Bauva
--
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