From: Florian Achleitner <florian.achleitner2.6.31@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 10:29:34 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] remote-testsvn: fix unitialized variable
Message-ID: <2763981.Tc7o2WorU3@flomedio>
In-Reply-To: <20121214221144.GA19677@sigill.intra.peff.net>

On Friday 14 December 2012 17:11:44 Jeff King wrote:

> [...]
> We can fix it by returning "-1" when no note is found (so on
> a zero return, we always found a valid value).

Good fix. Parsing of the note now always fails if the note doesn't contain the 
expected string, as it should.

> 
> Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
> ---
> I think this is the right fix, but I am not too familiar with this code,
> so I might be missing a case where a missing "Revision-number" should
> provide some sentinel value (like "0") instead of returning an error. In
> fact, of the two callsites, one already does such a zero-initialization.
> 
>  remote-testsvn.c | 4 +++-
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/remote-testsvn.c b/remote-testsvn.c
> index 51fba05..5ddf11c 100644
> --- a/remote-testsvn.c
> +++ b/remote-testsvn.c
> @@ -90,10 +90,12 @@ static int parse_rev_note(const char *msg, struct
> rev_note *res) if (end == value || i < 0 || i > UINT32_MAX)
>  				return -1;
>  			res->rev_nr = i;
> +			return 0;
>  		}
>  		msg += len + 1;
>  	}
> -	return 0;
> +	/* didn't find it */
> +	return -1;
>  }
> 
>  static int note2mark_cb(const unsigned char *object_sha1,