Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 06:52:31PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > >> > Interesting. I see that we still have the conditional code to call >> > out to sha1-lookup.c::sha1_entry_pos(). Do we need a similar change >> > over there, I wonder? Alternatively, as we have had the experimental >> > sha1-lookup.c::sha1_entry_pos() long enough without anybody using it, >> > perhaps we should write it off as a failed experiment and retire it? >> >> There is also sha1_pos(), which seems to have the same problem (and is >> used in several places). > > Actually, I take it back. The problem happens when we enter the loop > with no entries to look at. But both sha1_pos() and sha1_entry_pos() > return early before hitting their do-while loops in that case. Ah, I was not looking at that part of the code. Thanks. I still wonder if we want to retire that conditional invocation of sha1_entry_pos(), though.
