Re: [PATCH v5 2/4] read-cache: add strcmp_offset function
- From
- Jeff Hostetler <git@jeffhostetler.com>
- Date
- Apr 6, 2017, 15:58 UTC
- Message-ID
- <3f88c428-6d04-6ef5-f7bc-952daad2703a@jeffhostetler.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20170406141912.14536-1-szeder.dev@gmail.com>
On 4/6/2017 10:19 AM, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
Show 29 quoted lines
>> Add strcmp_offset() function to also return the offset of the >> first change. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jeff Hostetler <jeffhost@microsoft.com> >> --- >> cache.h | 1 + >> read-cache.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 2 files changed, 30 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/cache.h b/cache.h >> index 80b6372..4d82490 100644 >> --- a/cache.h >> +++ b/cache.h >> @@ -574,6 +574,7 @@ extern int write_locked_index(struct index_state *, struct lock_file *lock, unsi >> extern int discard_index(struct index_state *); >> extern int unmerged_index(const struct index_state *); >> extern int verify_path(const char *path); >> +extern int strcmp_offset(const char *s1_in, const char *s2_in, int *first_change); >> extern int index_dir_exists(struct index_state *istate, const char *name, int namelen); >> extern void adjust_dirname_case(struct index_state *istate, char *name); >> extern struct cache_entry *index_file_exists(struct index_state *istate, const char *name, int namelen, int igncase); >> diff --git a/read-cache.c b/read-cache.c >> index 9054369..b3fc77d 100644 >> --- a/read-cache.c >> +++ b/read-cache.c > > read-cache.c is probably not the best place for such a general string > utility function, though I'm not sure where its most apropriate place > would be.
Yeah, I looked and didn't see any place so I left it here near it's first usage for now.
Show 15 quoted lines
> >> @@ -887,6 +887,35 @@ static int has_file_name(struct index_state *istate, >> return retval; >> } >> >> + >> +/* >> + * Like strcmp(), but also return the offset of the first change. > > This comment doesn't tell us what will happen with the offset > parameter if it is NULL or if the two strings are equal. I don't > really care about the safety check for NULL: a callsite not interested > in the offset should just call strcmp() instead. I'm fine either way. > However, setting it to 0 when the strings are equal doesn't seem quite > right, does it.
Good catch. I'll add a null check.
When the strings are equal, I'm not sure any one value is better than another. I could leave it undefined or set it to the length. That might be more useful since we have it on hand and it might save the caller a strlen() later.
Show 46 quoted lines
>
>> + */
>> +int strcmp_offset(const char *s1_in, const char *s2_in, int *first_change)
>> +{
>> + const unsigned char *s1 = (const unsigned char *)s1_in;
>> + const unsigned char *s2 = (const unsigned char *)s2_in;
>> + int diff = 0;
>> + int k;
>> +
>> + *first_change = 0;
>> + for (k=0; s1[k]; k++)
>> + if ((diff = (s1[k] - s2[k])))
>> + goto found_it;
>> + if (!s2[k])
>> + return 0;
>> + diff = -1;
>> +
>> +found_it:
>> + *first_change = k;
>> + if (diff > 0)
>> + return 1;
>> + else if (diff < 0)
>> + return -1;
>> + else
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>
> The implementation seems to me a bit long-winded, with more
> conditional statements than necessary. How about something like this
> instead? Much shorter, no goto and only half the number of
> conditionals to reason about, leaves *first_change untouched when the
> two strings are equal, and deals with it being NULL.
>
> int strcmp_offset(const char *s1, const char *s2, int *first_change)
> {
> int k;
>
> for (k = 0; s1[k] == s2[k]; k++)
> if (s1[k] == '\0')
> return 0;
>
> if (first_change)
> *first_change = k;
> return ((unsigned char *)s1)[k] - ((unsigned char *)s2)[k];
> }
>Let me give that a try. Thanks! Jeff