Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 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?
Ah, forget the last two lines. You do do the massaging in your
patch.
My preference actually is to fix next_byte to follow the usual "when
we end, it points one past the valid region", though.
Thanks for digging it through.
