Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 03:02:02PM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
>
>> > for (i = 0, recovered = 0; recovered < trimmed && i <= ctx; i++) {
>> > while (recovered < trimmed && ap[recovered++] != '\n')
>> > ; /* nothing */
>> > }
>> >
>> > then (warning: I haven't had my coffee yet)?
>>
>> Yes, I think that is equivalent. My sleep-deprived brain keeps thinking
>> there must be a more clear way of writing this whole loop, but it
>> escapes me at the moment.
>
> And this came to me in a dream. :) It fixes the bug, and I think it is a
> bit simpler to see the termination conditions in a single loop. But
> please double-check correctness, and that you agree that it is more
> readable.
I wanted to recover to the end of the line that includes the cut-off
point, even when (ctx == 0), to be extra safer, but I do not think it
was necessary.
> ...
> bp -= blk;
> }
>
> + while (recovered < trimmed && ctx)
> + if (ap[recovered++] == '\n')
> + ctx--;
> a->size -= (trimmed - recovered);
> b->size -= (trimmed - recovered);
> }
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
