On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 10:03 PM, Junio C Hamano <[email protected]> wrote:
> When matching (i.e. the match_attrs() function), you would instead
> do
>
> path = xmemdupz(name, namelen);
> git_check_attr(path, item->attr_check);
>
> to grab values for only attributes that matter to you, instead of
> calling git_all_attrs() [*2*].
>
> After git_check_attr() returns, item->attr_check.check[0].attr would
> be git_attr("VAR1") and item->attr_check.check[0].value would be
> whatever setting the path has for the VAR1 attribute. You can use
> your match_mode logic to compare it with the values .attr_match
> expects.
>
> You do not necessarily have to have the same number of elements in
> .attr_match and .attr_check.check by the way. .attr_match might say
>
> VAR1=VAL2 !VAR1 -VAR1
>
> which may be always false if these are ANDed together, but in order
> to evaluate it, you need only one git_attr_check_elem for VAR1.
So for the matching we would need to get the order right, i.e.
const char *inspect_name = git_attr_name(item.attr_match[i].attr);
for (j=0; j < p.attr_check.check_nr; j++) {
const char *cur_name = git_attr_name(p.attr_check.check[j].attr);
if (!strcmp(inspect_name, cur_name))
break;
// now compare .attr_match[i] with attr_check.check[j]
This doesn't look cheap to me? Am I holding it wrong again?
--
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
