Junio C Hamano <[email protected]> writes:
> David Kastrup <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Making a single preparation run for counting the lines will avoid memory
>> fragmentation. Also, fix the allocated memory size which was wrong
>> when sizeof(int *) != sizeof(int), and would have been too small
>> for sizeof(int *) < sizeof(int), admittedly unlikely.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: David Kastrup <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> builtin/blame.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
>> 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/builtin/blame.c b/builtin/blame.c
>> index e44a6bb..522986d 100644
>> --- a/builtin/blame.c
>> +++ b/builtin/blame.c
>> @@ -1772,25 +1772,33 @@ static int prepare_lines(struct scoreboard *sb)
>> {
>> const char *buf = sb->final_buf;
>> unsigned long len = sb->final_buf_size;
>> - int num = 0, incomplete = 0, bol = 1;
>> + const char *end = buf + len;
>> + const char *p;
>> + int *lineno;
>> +
>> + int num = 0, incomplete = 0;
>
> Is there any significance to the blank line between these two
> variable definitions?
>
>> +
>> + for (p = buf;;) {
>> + if ((p = memchr(p, '\n', end-p)) == NULL)
>> + break;
>> + ++num, ++p;
>
> You have a peculiar style that is somewhat distracting. Why isn't
> this more like so?
>
> for (p = buf; p++, num++; ) {
> p = memchr(p, '\n', end - p);
> if (!p)
> break;
> }
Ok, I now wrote
for (p = buf;; num++, p++) {
p = memchr(p, '\n', end - p);
if (!p)
break;
}
and you know what? Its logic seems wrong. The reason is that the p++
does not really have anything to do with the iteration, but rather steps
past the '\n' from the memchr. So it's more like
for (p = buf;; num++) {
p = memchr(p, '\n', end - p);
if (p) {
p++;
continue;
}
break;
}
So barring protests, that's what I'm going to use instead.
--
David Kastrup
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
