Hello and welcome.  See the comments inline.

On 03/20/2014 02:32 AM, George Papanikolaou wrote:
> Hi fellows,
> I'm planning on applying on GSOC 2014...
> 
> I tried my luck with that kinda weird microproject about inefficiencies,
> and I think I've discovered some.
> 
> (also on a totally different mood, there are some warning about empty format
> strings during compilation that could easily be silenced with some #pragma
> calls on "-Wformat-zero-length". Is there a way you're not adding this?)

The main reason is probably that #pragmas are compiler-specific.  It is
undesirable to clutter up the source code with ugly #pragmas that only
benefit people using gcc.

I think that most people who use gcc compile with
-Wno-format-zero-length.  FWIW, the options that I use are

    O = 2
    CFLAGS = -g -O$(O) -Wall -Werror -Wdeclaration-after-statement
-Wno-format-zero-length -Wno-format-security $(EXTRA_CFLAGS)

, which you can put in your config.mak.

> The empty buffers check could happen at the beggining.

s/beggining/beginning/

> Leading whitespace check was unnecessary.
> Some style changes
> 
> Thanks.
> ---

Please pay attention to how patches have to be formatted:

The subject of the email and everything above the "---" line is used as
the commit's log message.  This should only include information that
belongs in the Git project's permanent history, not incidental
information like the fact that you are applying for GSoC.

The commit message *should* include an explanation of *why* you are
making a change, any tradeoffs that might be involved, etc.

The commit message also *must* include a Signed-off-by line.

Other discussion, not intended for the commit message, should be placed
directly *under* the "---" line.

>  builtin/apply.c | 25 +++++++++----------------
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/builtin/apply.c b/builtin/apply.c
> index b0d0986..df2435f 100644
> --- a/builtin/apply.c
> +++ b/builtin/apply.c
> @@ -294,20 +294,16 @@ static int fuzzy_matchlines(const char *s1, size_t n1,
>       const char *last2 = s2 + n2 - 1;
>       int result = 0;
>  
> +     /* early return if both lines are empty */
> +     if ((s1 > last1) && (s2 > last2))
> +             return 1;
> +

Why is this an improvement?  Do you expect this function to be called
often for empty lines (as opposed, for example, to lines consisting
solely of whitespace characters)?

>       /* ignore line endings */
>       while ((*last1 == '\r') || (*last1 == '\n'))
>               last1--;
>       while ((*last2 == '\r') || (*last2 == '\n'))
>               last2--;
>  
> -     /* skip leading whitespace */
> -     while (isspace(*s1) && (s1 <= last1))
> -             s1++;
> -     while (isspace(*s2) && (s2 <= last2))
> -             s2++;
> -     /* early return if both lines are empty */
> -     if ((s1 > last1) && (s2 > last2))
> -             return 1;
>       while (!result) {
>               result = *s1++ - *s2++;
>               /*
> @@ -315,18 +311,15 @@ static int fuzzy_matchlines(const char *s1, size_t n1,
>                * both buffers because we don't want "a b" to match
>                * "ab"
>                */
> -             if (isspace(*s1) && isspace(*s2)) {
> -                     while (isspace(*s1) && s1 <= last1)
> -                             s1++;
> -                     while (isspace(*s2) && s2 <= last2)
> -                             s2++;
> -             }
> +             while (isspace(*s1) && s1 <= last1)
> +                     s1++;
> +             while (isspace(*s2) && s2 <= last2)
> +                     s2++;

The comment just above this change gives a justification for putting an
"if" statement surrounding the "while" statements.  Do you think the
comment's argument is incorrect?  If so, please explain why, and remove
or change the comment.

>               /*
>                * If we reached the end on one side only,
>                * lines don't match
>                */
> -             if (
> -                 ((s2 > last2) && (s1 <= last1)) ||
> +             if (((s2 > last2) && (s1 <= last1)) ||

This reformatting doesn't have anything to do with the rest of your
patch.  If it were important enough to make this change, then it should
be submitted as a separate patch.  But it is probably not important
enough, and is only code churn, so it should probably be omitted entirely.

>                   ((s1 > last1) && (s2 <= last2)))
>                       return 0;
>               if ((s1 > last1) && (s2 > last2))
> 


-- 
Michael Haggerty
mhag...@alum.mit.edu
http://softwareswirl.blogspot.com/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to