On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 07:59:09AM +0200, Johannes Sixt wrote:
Am 5/2/2013 17:46, schrieb Jeff King:
On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 09:05:01AM +0200, Johannes Sixt wrote:
BTW, do you notice that the function is now modifying an object (the hash
table) even though this is rather unexpected from a
On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 02:02:44AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
Can we be sure that the function is never invoked in concurrently from
different threads? I attempted to audit code paths, but quickly gave up
because I know too little about this machinery.
I didn't check explicitly, but in
Am 5/1/2013 22:34, schrieb Jeff King:
struct object *lookup_object(const unsigned char *sha1)
{
- unsigned int i;
+ unsigned int i, first;
struct object *obj;
if (!obj_hash)
return NULL;
- i = hashtable_index(sha1);
+ first = i =
On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 08:44:07AM +0200, Johannes Sixt wrote:
Am 5/1/2013 22:34, schrieb Jeff King:
struct object *lookup_object(const unsigned char *sha1)
{
- unsigned int i;
+ unsigned int i, first;
struct object *obj;
if (!obj_hash)
return NULL;
Am 5/2/2013 8:46, schrieb Jeff King:
On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 08:44:07AM +0200, Johannes Sixt wrote:
Am 5/1/2013 22:34, schrieb Jeff King:
struct object *lookup_object(const unsigned char *sha1)
{
- unsigned int i;
+ unsigned int i, first;
struct object *obj;
if (!obj_hash)
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
I figured the lengthy description in the commit message would be
sufficient, but I don't mind adding something like your suggestion to
point readers of the code in the right direction when they see it.
Yeah, I'll squash J6t's comment in and requeue.
If
Johannes Sixt j.s...@viscovery.net writes:
BTW, do you notice that the function is now modifying an object (the hash
table) even though this is rather unexpected from a lookup function?
At the philosophical level, lookup ought to be operating on a
const table. But at the implementation level,
On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 09:05:01AM +0200, Johannes Sixt wrote:
I figured the lengthy description in the commit message would be
sufficient,
It's absolutely sufficient *if* one reads the commit message. In this
case, though it goes more like this function should be trivial, and it is
--
On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 08:46:08AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Johannes Sixt j.s...@viscovery.net writes:
BTW, do you notice that the function is now modifying an object (the hash
table) even though this is rather unexpected from a lookup function?
At the philosophical level, lookup
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
We could instead bump X into the `i` slot, and then shift
the whole contiguous chain down by one, resulting in:
index | i-1 | i | i+1 | i+2 |
---
entry ... | A | X | B | C | ...
10 matches
Mail list logo