Re: [PATCH v6 1/9] connect: call get_host_and_port() earlier
- From
Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org>
- Date
- May 20, 2016, 22:28 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20160520222831.GA7752@glandium.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqqwpmobcd4.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 03:20:23PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 33 quoted lines
> Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org> writes: > > >> Can never happen because? > >> > >> !*port means get_host_and_port() made the "port" pointer point at > >> a NUL byte. That does not happen because the only case port is > >> moved by that function is to have it point at a byte after we > >> found ':', and the "port" string is a decimal integer whose value > >> is between 0 and 65535, so there is no way port points at an empty > >> string. > >> > >> OK. > > > > Do you want me to add this to the commit message in a possible v7? > > No. > > I was merely thinking aloud to see if "in a case that never can > happen" is sufficient decsription. I think it is ;-) > > >> This looks strange.... > > v3 of this series did remove this get_port(), and broke the > > '[host:port]:path' syntax as a consequence. The reason this happens is > > that get_host_and_port, in that case, is called with [host:port], sees > > the square brackets, and searches the port *after* the closing bracket, > > because the usual case where square brackets appear is ipv6 addresses, > > which contain colons, and the brackets in that case are used to separate > > the host and the port. > > > > In that case, get_host_and_port returns "host:port" and null. > > Doesn't that indicate that this codepath deserves some in-code > comment?
What would be the usual way you'd do this? separate patch? or just doing it in one of the patches that touches the surrounding code?
Mike