Thanks - I don't think I have any more comments on this patch set after
these.
On 03/10/2017 10:59 AM, Brandon Williams wrote:
diff --git a/pathspec.c b/pathspec.c
index b961f00c8..7cd5f6e3d 100644
--- a/pathspec.c
+++ b/pathspec.c
@@ -87,6 +89,74 @@ static void prefix_magic(struct strbuf *sb, int prefixlen,
unsigned magic)
strbuf_addf(sb, ",prefix:%d)", prefixlen);
}
+static void parse_pathspec_attr_match(struct pathspec_item *item, const char
*value)
+{
+ struct string_list_item *si;
+ struct string_list list = STRING_LIST_INIT_DUP;
+
+ if (item->attr_check)
+ die(_("Only one 'attr:' specification is allowed."));
+
+ if (!value || !*value)
+ die(_("attr spec must not be empty"));
+
+ string_list_split(&list, value, ' ', -1);
+ string_list_remove_empty_items(&list, 0);
+
+ item->attr_check = attr_check_alloc();
+ ALLOC_GROW(item->attr_match,
+ list.nr,
+ item->attr_match_alloc);
If item->attr_match always starts empty, then I think an xmalloc or
xcalloc suffices (and we don't need item->attr_match_alloc anymore).
We should probably also check item->attr_match above - that is, `if
(item->attr_check || item->attr_match)`.
+
+ for_each_string_list_item(si, &list) {
+ size_t attr_len;
+ char *attr_name;
+ const struct git_attr *a;
+
+ int j = item->attr_match_nr++;
+ const char *attr = si->string;
+ struct attr_match *am = &item->attr_match[j];
+
+ switch (*attr) {
+ case '!':
+ am->match_mode = MATCH_UNSPECIFIED;
+ attr++;
+ attr_len = strlen(attr);
+ break;
+ case '-':
+ am->match_mode = MATCH_UNSET;
+ attr++;
+ attr_len = strlen(attr);
+ break;
+ default:
+ attr_len = strcspn(attr, "=");
+ if (attr[attr_len] != '=')
+ am->match_mode = MATCH_SET;
+ else {
+ am->match_mode = MATCH_VALUE;
+ am->value = xstrdup(&attr[attr_len + 1]);
+ if (strchr(am->value, '\\'))
+ die(_("attr spec values must not contain
backslashes"));
+ }
+ break;
+ }
+
+ attr_name = xmemdupz(attr, attr_len);
+ a = git_attr(attr_name);
+ if (!a)
+ die(_("invalid attribute name %s"), attr_name);
+
+ attr_check_append(item->attr_check, a);
+
+ free(attr_name);
+ }
+
+ if (item->attr_check->nr != item->attr_match_nr)
+ die("BUG: should have same number of entries");
I think such postcondition checks are usually not worth it, but others
might differ.
+
+ string_list_clear(&list, 0);
+}
+
static inline int get_literal_global(void)
{
static int literal = -1;
