Am 03.06.2013 02:04, schrieb Felipe Contreras:
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 6:47 PM, René Scharfe
rene.scha...@lsrfire.ath.cx wrote:
Am 03.06.2013 01:23, schrieb Felipe Contreras:
I didn't say we should do 'if (ce) free(ce);' instead of 'free(ce);' I
said we should do 'if (cd ce !=
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 10:59 AM, René Scharfe
rene.scha...@lsrfire.ath.cx wrote:
Am 03.06.2013 02:04, schrieb Felipe Contreras:
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 6:47 PM, René Scharfe
rene.scha...@lsrfire.ath.cx wrote:
Am 03.06.2013 01:23, schrieb Felipe Contreras:
I didn't say we should do 'if (ce)
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes:
I don't see that, and I don't like adding a check that I don't expect to be
ever needed.
It's called self-documenting code; by adding a check for the NULL
pointer, we are stating that ce can be NULL, if we don't do that,
people reading
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes:
I don't see that, and I don't like adding a check that I don't expect to be
ever needed.
It's called self-documenting code; by adding a check for the NULL
pointer, we
The merge functions duplicate entries as needed and they don't free
them. Release them in unpack_nondirectories, the same function
where they were allocated, after we're done.
As suggested by Felipe, use the same loop style (zero-based for loop)
for freeing as for allocating.
Improved-by:
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 10:46 AM, René Scharfe
rene.scha...@lsrfire.ath.cx wrote:
The merge functions duplicate entries as needed and they don't free
them. Release them in unpack_nondirectories, the same function
where they were allocated, after we're done.
As suggested by Felipe, use the
Am 02.06.2013 19:25, schrieb Felipe Contreras:
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 10:46 AM, René Scharfe
rene.scha...@lsrfire.ath.cx wrote:
+ for (i = 0; i n; i++) {
+ struct cache_entry *ce = src[i + o-merge];
+ if (ce != o-df_conflict_entry)
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 12:54 PM, René Scharfe
rene.scha...@lsrfire.ath.cx wrote:
Am 02.06.2013 19:25, schrieb Felipe Contreras:
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 10:46 AM, René Scharfe
rene.scha...@lsrfire.ath.cx wrote:
+ for (i = 0; i n; i++) {
+ struct
Am 02.06.2013 19:59, schrieb Felipe Contreras:
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 12:54 PM, René Scharfe
rene.scha...@lsrfire.ath.cx wrote:
Am 02.06.2013 19:25, schrieb Felipe Contreras:
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 10:46 AM, René Scharfe
rene.scha...@lsrfire.ath.cx wrote:
+ for (i = 0; i n;
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 3:26 PM, René Scharfe
rene.scha...@lsrfire.ath.cx wrote:
Am 02.06.2013 19:59, schrieb Felipe Contreras:
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 12:54 PM, René Scharfe
rene.scha...@lsrfire.ath.cx wrote:
Am 02.06.2013 19:25, schrieb Felipe Contreras:
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 10:46 AM,
Am 03.06.2013 00:38, schrieb Felipe Contreras:
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 3:26 PM, René Scharfe
rene.scha...@lsrfire.ath.cx wrote:
Am 02.06.2013 19:59, schrieb Felipe Contreras:
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 12:54 PM, René Scharfe
rene.scha...@lsrfire.ath.cx wrote:
Am 02.06.2013 19:25, schrieb Felipe
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 6:06 PM, René Scharfe
rene.scha...@lsrfire.ath.cx wrote:
Am 03.06.2013 00:38, schrieb Felipe Contreras:
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 3:26 PM, René Scharfe
rene.scha...@lsrfire.ath.cx wrote:
Am 02.06.2013 19:59, schrieb Felipe Contreras:
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 12:54 PM,
Am 03.06.2013 01:23, schrieb Felipe Contreras:
I didn't say we should do 'if (ce) free(ce);' instead of 'free(ce);' I
said we should do 'if (cd ce != o-df_conflict_entry)' instead of
'if (ce != o-df_conflict_entry)'.
I did assume you meant the latter.
There's no reason not to.
Only the
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 6:47 PM, René Scharfe
rene.scha...@lsrfire.ath.cx wrote:
Am 03.06.2013 01:23, schrieb Felipe Contreras:
I didn't say we should do 'if (ce) free(ce);' instead of 'free(ce);' I
said we should do 'if (cd ce != o-df_conflict_entry)' instead of
'if (ce !=
14 matches
Mail list logo
