From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 17:14:12 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] bisect: refactor sha1_array into a generic sha1 list
Message-ID: <7vy6212t23.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <20110520074714.GC3663@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

> Yeah, they probably should both be unsigned, and the sorted flag should
> be a bit-field (not that it saves any space here, but it makes its purpose
> more clear).
>
> Junio, do you mind squashing this into patch 2/3?

I actually do ;-) If you grep for ALLOC_GROW and look at the structures
they touch, nr/alloc pairs that are integers are the majority in our
codebase, and I do not see much bikeshedding value in adding more unsigned
ones to the mix.

> diff --git a/sha1-array.h b/sha1-array.h
> index 15d3b6b..b602303 100644
> --- a/sha1-array.h
> +++ b/sha1-array.h
> @@ -3,9 +3,9 @@
>  
>  struct sha1_array {
>  	unsigned char (*sha1)[20];
> -	int nr;
> -	int alloc;
> -	int sorted;
> +	unsigned nr;
> +	unsigned alloc;
> +	unsigned sorted:1;
>  };
>  
>  #define SHA1_ARRAY_INIT { NULL, 0, 0, 0 }
>
> -Peff