Am Wed, 11 Jul 2018 08:34:25 -0400 schrieb Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx>: > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 10:54:59AM +0200, Henning Schild wrote: > > > > In the general case you need: > > > > > > found = *next ? next + 1 : next; > > > > > > or similar. In this case, you can actually do: > > > > > > found = next; > > > > > > because we know that it's OK to search over the literal space > > > again. But that's pretty subtle, so we're probably better off > > > just doing the conditional above. > > > > > > (And yes, looking at the existing code, I think it's even worse, > > > as there does not seem to be a guarantee that we even have 16 > > > characters in the string). > > > > The existing code works only on expected output and the same is true > > for the version after this patch. Making the parser robust against > > random input would imho be a sort of cleanup patch on top of my > > series. .. or before, in which case i would become responsible for > > making sure that still works after my modification. > > This argument is twofold. I do not really want to fix that as well > > and it might be a good idea to separate concerns anyways. > > I think it's worth addressing in the near term, if only because this > kind of off-by-one is quite subtle, and I don't want to forget to deal > with it. Whether that happens as part of this patch, or as a cleanup > before or after, I'm not picky. :) I get that and if anyone is willing to write that code, i will base my patches on it. What i want to avoid is taking responsibility for problems i did not introduce, just because i happen to work on that code at the moment. Keeping track of that (not forgetting) is also not for the random contributor like myself. Henning > -Peff
