Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> it does. It just adjusts our "end pointer" to point to the last valid
> character in the string (rather than one past), which seems to be the
> convention that those loops (and next_byte) expect.
Yeah I am not sure if I like this comparison at the beginning of the
function:
static int next_byte(const char **cp, const char **endp,
const struct diff_options *diffopt)
{
int retval;
if (*cp > *endp)
return -1;
but it says endp _is_ part of valid input, contrary to my intuition.
And your change to the initialization of ae/be in moved_entry_cmp()
makes it consistent with it, I think.
But doesn't it mean ae computation in get_string_hash() also needs a
massaging?
