Aaron Lipman <alipman88@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Now that find_bisection() accepts multiple boolean arguments, these may
> be combined into a single unsigned integer in order to declutter some of
> the code in bisect.c
I'd rather call them "flags" without "bisect_". If we are passing
two sets of flags, one set about "bisect" and the other set about
something else, it would make quite a lot of sense to call the first
set "bisect_flags", but what we are seeing here is not like that.
> + if (read_first_parent_option())
> + bisect_flags |= BISECT_FIRST_PARENT;
> +
> + if (!!skipped_revs.nr)
> + bisect_flags |= BISECT_FIND_ALL;
> +
You do not care what kind of "true" you are feeding "if()", so I do
not think you would want to keep !! prefix here. Older API into
find_bisection() may wanted to say "pass 1 to find_all", in which
case, normalizing with !! prefix may have made perfect sense, but
that no longer holds here.
> +
> + revs.first_parent_only = !!(bisect_flags & BISECT_FIRST_PARENT);
On the other hand, this !! may make sense; especially since .first_parent_only
could just be a one-bit unsigned bitfield.
> revs.limited = 1;
>
> bisect_common(&revs);
>
> - find_bisection(&revs.commits, &reaches, &all, !!skipped_revs.nr, first_parent_only);
> + find_bisection(&revs.commits, &reaches, &all, bisect_flags);
> @@ -23,6 +23,9 @@ struct commit_list *filter_skipped(struct commit_list *list,
> #define BISECT_SHOW_ALL (1<<0)
> #define REV_LIST_QUIET (1<<1)
>
> +#define BISECT_FIND_ALL (1u<<0)
> +#define BISECT_FIRST_PARENT (1u<<1)
The set of bits to go to your "bisect_flags" are only these two new
ones, and the existing BISECT_SHOW_ALL does not belong to it (it is
a bit in rev_list_info.flags), but it is not apparent. I wonder if
there is a good way to help readers easily tell these two sets apart.
These are flags passed to find_bisection(), so perhaps
#define FIND_BISECTION_ALL (1U<<0)
#define FIND_BISECTION_FIRST_PARENT_ONLY (1U<<1)
unsigned flags = 0;
if (first_parent)
flags |= FIND_BISECTION_FIRST_PARENT_ONLY;
...
find_bisection(..., flags);
would be a reasonable compromise?
Thanks.
