Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 10:54 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> +static int next_byte(const char **cp, const char **endp,
>>> + const struct diff_options *diffopt)
>>> +{
>>> + int retval;
>>> +
>>> + if (DIFF_XDL_TST(diffopt, IGNORE_WHITESPACE_AT_EOL)) {
>>> + while (*endp > *cp && isspace(**endp))
>>> + (*endp)--;
>>> + }
>>
>> This should be done by the callers (both moved_entry_cmp() and
>> get_string_hash()) before starting to iterate over the bytes from
>> the beginning, no?
>
> Good point.
>
>>> +
>>> + retval = **cp;
>>
>> The char could be signed, and byte 0xff may become indistinguishable
>> from the EOF (i.e. -1) you returned earlier.
>
> Ah, I messed up there. I think EOF is wrong, too.
> So maybe we'll just return 256 to indicate the end of memory chunk
> to not have to deal with signedness
I would just say that next_byte() returns -1 (at end of string) or
0-255 if it is returning a byte that matters.
