From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2013 04:37:18 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Using a bit more decoration
Message-ID: <7vobdotj41.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <20130409035126.GA17319@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

> Neat. Reading through, I didn't notice anything obviously wrong with any
> of the patches (though there is one gcc warning, which I'll respond to
> separately).
>
> It does make me a little nervous to have code that almost never gets
> exercised (i.e., when indegree is really high, or a large number of
> encodings). It seems like a bug waiting to happen when somebody does hit
> that condition.

One round of work-in-progress code I had when you asked what I was
up to did have that off-by-one bug ;-)  set_indegree() had to spill
into the hash when storing 255 (i.e. exactly the value of LIMIT) but
I was spilling strting from 256, so an entry with 255 children looked
into the hash, finding nothing and said "I am done" X-<.

I haven't bothered to try the "more than 256 encodings", but with
the likely off-by-one in mind, I think I was being careful enough.