Re: [PATCH 1/2] [GSOC] ref-filter: add %(raw) atom

From: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>
Date: May 29, 2021, 13:23 UTC
Message-ID: <13c63e79-27fd-58d5-9a4c-6b58c40ef4b8@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <60afca827a28f_265302085b@natae.notmuch>

On 27/05/2021 17:36, Felipe Contreras wrote:

Show 5 quoted lines

> ZheNing Hu via GitGitGadget wrote:
> [...]
>> +static int memcasecmp(const void *vs1, const void *vs2, size_t n)
> 
> Why void *? We can delcare as char *.

If you look at how this function is used you'll see
	int (*cmp_fn)(const void *, const void *, size_t);
	cmp_fn = s->sort_flags & REF_SORTING_ICASE
			? memcasecmp : memcmp;

So the signature must match memcmp to avoid undefined behavior (a ternary expression is undefined unless both sides evaluate to the same type and calling a function through a pointer a different type is undefined as well)

Show 56 quoted lines

>> +{
>> +	size_t i;
>> +	const char *s1 = (const char *)vs1;
>> +	const char *s2 = (const char *)vs2;
> 
> Then we avoid this extra step.
> 
>> +	for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
>> +		unsigned char u1 = s1[i];
>> +		unsigned char u2 = s2[i];
> 
> There's no need for two entirely new variables...
> 
>> +		int U1 = toupper (u1);
>> +		int U2 = toupper (u2);
> 
> You can do toupper(s1[i]) directly (BTW, there's an extra space: `foo(x)`,
> not `foo (x)`).
> 
> While we are at it, why keep an extra index from s1, when s1 is never
> used again?
> 
> We can simply advance both s1 and s2:
> 
>    s1++, s2++
> 
>> +		int diff = (UCHAR_MAX <= INT_MAX ? U1 - U2
>> +			: U1 < U2 ? -1 : U2 < U1);
> 
> I don't understand what this is supposed to achieve. Both U1 and U2 are
> integers, pretty low integers actually.
> 
> If we get rid if that complexity we don't even need U1 or U2, just do:
> 
>    diff = toupper(u1) - toupper(u2);
> 
>> +		if (diff)
>> +			return diff;
>> +	}
>> +	return 0;
>> +}
> 
> All we have to do is define the end point, and then we don't need i:
> 
> 	static int memcasecmp(const char *s1, const char *s2, size_t n)
> 	{
> 		const char *end = s1 + n;
> 		for (; s1 < end; s1++, s2++) {
> 			int diff = tolower(*s1) - tolower(*s2);
> 			if (diff)
> 				return diff;
> 		}
> 		return 0;
> 	}
> 
> (and I personally prefer lower to upper)

We should be using tolower() as that is what POSIX specifies for 
strcasecmp() [1] which we are trying to emulate and there are cases[2] where
	(tolower(c1) == tolower(c2)) != (toupper(c1) == toupper(c2))

Best Wishes

Phillip

[1] https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dotted_and_dotless_I#In_computing

Show 56 quoted lines

> Check the following resource for a detailed explanation of why my
> modified version is considered good taste:
> 
> https://github.com/felipec/linked-list-good-taste
> 
>>   static int cmp_ref_sorting(struct ref_sorting *s, struct ref_array_item *a, struct ref_array_item *b)
>>   {
>>   	struct atom_value *va, *vb;
>> @@ -2304,6 +2382,7 @@ static int cmp_ref_sorting(struct ref_sorting *s, struct ref_array_item *a, stru
>>   	int cmp_detached_head = 0;
>>   	cmp_type cmp_type = used_atom[s->atom].type;
>>   	struct strbuf err = STRBUF_INIT;
>> +	size_t slen = 0;
>>   
>>   	if (get_ref_atom_value(a, s->atom, &va, &err))
>>   		die("%s", err.buf);
>> @@ -2317,10 +2396,32 @@ static int cmp_ref_sorting(struct ref_sorting *s, struct ref_array_item *a, stru
>>   	} else if (s->sort_flags & REF_SORTING_VERSION) {
>>   		cmp = versioncmp(va->s, vb->s);
>>   	} else if (cmp_type == FIELD_STR) {
>> -		int (*cmp_fn)(const char *, const char *);
>> -		cmp_fn = s->sort_flags & REF_SORTING_ICASE
>> -			? strcasecmp : strcmp;
>> -		cmp = cmp_fn(va->s, vb->s);
>> +		if (va->s_size == ATOM_VALUE_S_SIZE_INIT &&
>> +		    vb->s_size == ATOM_VALUE_S_SIZE_INIT) {
>> +			int (*cmp_fn)(const char *, const char *);
>> +			cmp_fn = s->sort_flags & REF_SORTING_ICASE
>> +				? strcasecmp : strcmp;
>> +			cmp = cmp_fn(va->s, vb->s);
>> +		} else {
>> +			int (*cmp_fn)(const void *, const void *, size_t);
>> +			cmp_fn = s->sort_flags & REF_SORTING_ICASE
>> +				? memcasecmp : memcmp;
>> +
>> +			if (va->s_size != ATOM_VALUE_S_SIZE_INIT &&
>> +			    vb->s_size != ATOM_VALUE_S_SIZE_INIT) {
>> +				cmp = cmp_fn(va->s, vb->s, va->s_size > vb->s_size ?
>> +				       vb->s_size : va->s_size);
>> +			} else if (va->s_size == ATOM_VALUE_S_SIZE_INIT) {
>> +				slen = strlen(va->s);
>> +				cmp = cmp_fn(va->s, vb->s, slen > vb->s_size ?
>> +					     vb->s_size : slen);
>> +			} else {
>> +				slen = strlen(vb->s);
>> +				cmp = cmp_fn(va->s, vb->s, slen > va->s_size ?
>> +					     slen : va->s_size);
>> +			}
>> +			cmp = cmp ? cmp : va->s_size - vb->s_size;
>> +		}
> 
> This hurts my eyes. I think the complexity of this chunk warrants a
> separate function. Then the logic would be easer to see.
> 
> Cheers.
>