ZheNing Hu via GitGitGadget wrote:
> +static int raw_atom_parser(const struct ref_format *format, struct used_atom *atom,
> + const char *arg, struct strbuf *err)
> +{
> + if (!arg) {
> + atom->u.raw_data.option = RAW_BARE;
> + } else if (!strcmp(arg, "size"))
No need for braces.
if (!arg)
...
else
> @@ -1307,10 +1349,22 @@ static void grab_sub_body_contents(struct atom_value *val, int deref, void *buf)
> continue;
> if (deref)
> name++;
> - if (strcmp(name, "body") &&
> - !starts_with(name, "subject") &&
> - !starts_with(name, "trailers") &&
> - !starts_with(name, "contents"))
> +
> + if (starts_with(name, "raw")) {
> + if (atom->u.raw_data.option == RAW_BARE) {
> + v->s = xmemdupz(buf, buf_size);
> + v->s_size = buf_size;
> + } else if (atom->u.raw_data.option == RAW_LENGTH)
> + v->s = xstrfmt("%"PRIuMAX, (uintmax_t)buf_size);
I think it's better to be consistent: if you used braces in the if, uses
braces in else.
> + continue;
> + }
> +static int memcasecmp(const void *vs1, const void *vs2, size_t n)
Why void *? We can delcare as char *.
> +{
> + size_t i;
> + const char *s1 = (const char *)vs1;
> + const char *s2 = (const char *)vs2;
Then we avoid this extra step.
> + for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
> + unsigned char u1 = s1[i];
> + unsigned char u2 = s2[i];
There's no need for two entirely new variables...
> + int U1 = toupper (u1);
> + int U2 = toupper (u2);
You can do toupper(s1[i]) directly (BTW, there's an extra space: `foo(x)`,
not `foo (x)`).
While we are at it, why keep an extra index from s1, when s1 is never
used again?
We can simply advance both s1 and s2:
s1++, s2++
> + int diff = (UCHAR_MAX <= INT_MAX ? U1 - U2
> + : U1 < U2 ? -1 : U2 < U1);
I don't understand what this is supposed to achieve. Both U1 and U2 are
integers, pretty low integers actually.
If we get rid if that complexity we don't even need U1 or U2, just do:
diff = toupper(u1) - toupper(u2);
> + if (diff)
> + return diff;
> + }
> + return 0;
> +}
All we have to do is define the end point, and then we don't need i:
static int memcasecmp(const char *s1, const char *s2, size_t n)
{
const char *end = s1 + n;
for (; s1 < end; s1++, s2++) {
int diff = tolower(*s1) - tolower(*s2);
if (diff)
return diff;
}
return 0;
}
(and I personally prefer lower to upper)
Check the following resource for a detailed explanation of why my
modified version is considered good taste:
https://github.com/felipec/linked-list-good-taste
> static int cmp_ref_sorting(struct ref_sorting *s, struct ref_array_item *a, struct ref_array_item *b)
> {
> struct atom_value *va, *vb;
> @@ -2304,6 +2382,7 @@ static int cmp_ref_sorting(struct ref_sorting *s, struct ref_array_item *a, stru
> int cmp_detached_head = 0;
> cmp_type cmp_type = used_atom[s->atom].type;
> struct strbuf err = STRBUF_INIT;
> + size_t slen = 0;
>
> if (get_ref_atom_value(a, s->atom, &va, &err))
> die("%s", err.buf);
> @@ -2317,10 +2396,32 @@ static int cmp_ref_sorting(struct ref_sorting *s, struct ref_array_item *a, stru
> } else if (s->sort_flags & REF_SORTING_VERSION) {
> cmp = versioncmp(va->s, vb->s);
> } else if (cmp_type == FIELD_STR) {
> - int (*cmp_fn)(const char *, const char *);
> - cmp_fn = s->sort_flags & REF_SORTING_ICASE
> - ? strcasecmp : strcmp;
> - cmp = cmp_fn(va->s, vb->s);
> + if (va->s_size == ATOM_VALUE_S_SIZE_INIT &&
> + vb->s_size == ATOM_VALUE_S_SIZE_INIT) {
> + int (*cmp_fn)(const char *, const char *);
> + cmp_fn = s->sort_flags & REF_SORTING_ICASE
> + ? strcasecmp : strcmp;
> + cmp = cmp_fn(va->s, vb->s);
> + } else {
> + int (*cmp_fn)(const void *, const void *, size_t);
> + cmp_fn = s->sort_flags & REF_SORTING_ICASE
> + ? memcasecmp : memcmp;
> +
> + if (va->s_size != ATOM_VALUE_S_SIZE_INIT &&
> + vb->s_size != ATOM_VALUE_S_SIZE_INIT) {
> + cmp = cmp_fn(va->s, vb->s, va->s_size > vb->s_size ?
> + vb->s_size : va->s_size);
> + } else if (va->s_size == ATOM_VALUE_S_SIZE_INIT) {
> + slen = strlen(va->s);
> + cmp = cmp_fn(va->s, vb->s, slen > vb->s_size ?
> + vb->s_size : slen);
> + } else {
> + slen = strlen(vb->s);
> + cmp = cmp_fn(va->s, vb->s, slen > va->s_size ?
> + slen : va->s_size);
> + }
> + cmp = cmp ? cmp : va->s_size - vb->s_size;
> + }
This hurts my eyes. I think the complexity of this chunk warrants a
separate function. Then the logic would be easer to see.
Cheers.
--
Felipe Contreras
