Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > > > So maybe: > > > > if (!oideq(real_oid, oid)) > > > > instead? It's a little slower, but the point of this is to diagnose and > > die, so it's not exactly a hot path. :) > > Very true, including the part that the original is fine because it > is localized and fairly obvious. For a public function, we cannot > assume any additional constraints between oid and real_oid (other > than they are of the same "struct object_id *" type) like the two > pointers prepared locally in the original had, and use of oideq() > would be more appropriate here. > > Thanks. Makes sense. I'll make the change.
