On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 01:49:45AM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
> This one really is a hashcpy() now, right, even after your final patch?
> I guess using rawsz explicitly makes it match the computation here:
>
> > @@ -107,7 +108,7 @@ static void entry_extract(struct tree_desc *t, struct name_entry *a)
> > static int update_tree_entry_internal(struct tree_desc *desc, struct strbuf *err)
> > {
> > const void *buf = desc->buffer;
> > - const unsigned char *end = desc->entry.oid->hash + the_hash_algo->rawsz;
> > + const unsigned char *end = (const unsigned char *)desc->entry.path + desc->entry.pathlen + 1 + the_hash_algo->rawsz;
> > unsigned long size = desc->size;
> > unsigned long len = end - (const unsigned char *)buf;
>
> So maybe it's better to be explicit as you have here. (Mostly just as I
> was reading it, I was looking for a use of hashcpy and was surprised not
> to find it ;) ).
Yeah, I think a hashcpy is a better choice. Will fix.
--
brian m. carlson: Houston, Texas, US
OpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
