On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Jonathan Tan wrote:
> Overall, this patch seems larger than it should to me, although there
> might be good reasons for that that I don't know. I'll remark on what
> I find unexpected.
>
>>
>> +static void
Overall, this patch seems larger than it should to me, although there
might be good reasons for that that I don't know. I'll remark on what
I find unexpected.
On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 9:01 PM, Stefan Beller wrote:
> diff --git a/diff.c b/diff.c
> index 08dcc56bb9..dbab7fb44e
On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 9:06 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 09:01:16PM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote:
>
>> + for (i = 0; i < o->line_buffer_nr; i++);
>> + free((void*)o->line_buffer[i].line);
>
> I haven't looked at the patches yet, but
On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 09:01:16PM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote:
> + for (i = 0; i < o->line_buffer_nr; i++);
> + free((void*)o->line_buffer[i].line);
I haven't looked at the patches yet, but this ";" on the for line is
almost certainly a typo (gcc catches it due to
Introduce a new option 'use_buffer' in the struct diff_options which
controls whether all output is buffered up until all output is available.
We'll have two new structs in diff.h, one of them 'buffered_patch_line'
will be used to buffer each line, and the other 'buffered_patch_file_pair'
will
5 matches
Mail list logo