On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 01:43:05AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
>
> So yeah, I'm sure it could be rewritten around memrchr() or something,
> but I doubt it would be much shorter, and the chance of introducing an
> off-by-one seems non-trivial. :)
Considering I am writing it, it is most likely warranted ;)
but it doesn't look that bad IMHO
Carlo
PS. I tested it in macOS with the compatibility layer that will be needed
------ 8> -------
Subject: [PATCH] grep: retire strip_timestamp()
After recent changes, the name is no longer valid, as the function
doesn't strip anything.
Having the code in the main function also helps with readability
Signed-off-by: Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belón <carenas@xxxxxxxxx>
---
grep.c | 19 +++++--------------
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/grep.c b/grep.c
index 5b1f2da4d3..56fd86a7d8 100644
--- a/grep.c
+++ b/grep.c
@@ -922,18 +922,6 @@ static int patmatch(struct grep_pat *p, char *line, char *eol,
return hit;
}
-static void strip_timestamp(char *bol, char **eol_p)
-{
- char *eol = *eol_p;
-
- while (bol < --eol) {
- if (*eol != '>')
- continue;
- *eol_p = ++eol;
- break;
- }
-}
-
static struct {
const char *field;
size_t len;
@@ -965,9 +953,12 @@ static int match_one_pattern(struct grep_pat *p, char *bol, char *eol,
bol += len;
switch (p->field) {
case GREP_HEADER_AUTHOR:
- case GREP_HEADER_COMMITTER:
- strip_timestamp(bol, &eol);
+ case GREP_HEADER_COMMITTER: {
+ char *em = memrchr(bol, '>', eol - bol);
+ if (em)
+ eol = em + 1;
break;
+ }
default:
break;
}
--
2.33.0.911.gbe391d4e11
