This happens even with -U0 which does not include the e.g. trailing
bit of other_routine.
$ git diff -U0 -b --function-context
diff --git i/example.c w/example.c
index d87b59b..346e2a7 100644
--- i/example.c
+++ w/example.c
@@ -6,3 +6,3 @@ int other_routine() {
int main() {
-
+ puts("Hello, world!");
}
Zach Riggle
On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 3:12 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Zach Riggle <zachriggle@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > When using --function-context, the function that is claimed at the top
> > of the diff does not match the actual function.
> >
> > Note that the change exists in main, but the hunk header
> > (terminology?) shows other_routine.
> >
> > $ git --version
> > git version 2.27.0
> >
> > $ git diff -b --function-context
> > diff --git i/example.c w/example.c
> > index d87b59b..346e2a7 100644
> > --- i/example.c
> > +++ w/example.c
> > @@ -4,5 +4,5 @@ int other_routine() {
> > }
> >
> > int main() {
> > -
> > + puts("Hello, world!");
> > }
> >
> > Zach Riggle
>
> I think it is possible to modify the "find the line that match
> xfuncname pattern" logic to start scanning backwards from the first
> actual change (i.e. the blank line in the preimage of the patch
> inside "int main() {" function in your example) and make the hunk
> header say "int main() {" instead of "int other_routine() {".
>
> I however doubt that such a change makes any sense. In fact, I find
> the sample output above both quite logical and also even desirable.
>
> It is logical because the first thing we see in the hunk, "}", is at
> the end of "int other_routine() {" function; it does not conclude
> the "int main() {" function. Saying "int main() {" there on the
> hunk header line would be misleading and confusing. It sends a
> wrong signal that there was such a line _before_ the first line we
> see in this hunk, which is definitely not.
>
> It is desirable because it gives more information than saying the
> illogical "main". The reader can see what the routine before the
> beginning of main function we see in the hunk is. In the above
> example it may not matter, but if we see "return -1;" at the end of
> that function and a call to other_routine() from main(), e.g.
>
> @@ ... @@ int other_routine() {
> return -1;
> }
> int main() {
> - int i = other_routine();
> + int i = other_routine() ? 1 : 0;
> printf("%d\n", i);
> }
>
> it would be more informative than having "int main() {" there.
