Re: [PATCH 2/7] Fix ignoring of pathspecs with rev-list --objects
- From
Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
- Date
- Aug 25, 2010, 22:11 UTC
- Message-ID
- <AANLkTimguNHXSFyO1EvS+dHbHiXU-dXTNwkWfEsVUbVC@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <1282704795-29661-3-git-send-email-newren@gmail.com>
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 12:53 PM, Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> wrote:
Show 15 quoted lines
> @@ -84,7 +85,24 @@ static void process_tree(struct rev_info *revs,
>
> init_tree_desc(&desc, tree->buffer, tree->size);
>
> - while (tree_entry(&desc, &entry)) {
> + for (; desc.size; update_tree_entry(&desc)) {
> + entry = desc.entry;
> +
> + if (!all_interesting) {
> + char *full_path = path_name(path, name);
> + int full_path_len = strlen(full_path);
> + int showit = tree_entry_interesting(&desc,
> full_path, full_path_len,
> + &revs->diffopt);
> + free(full_path);I wonder if we can avoid xmalloc/free so many times here. If full_path is unchanged, how about moving it outside the loop?
Show 16 quoted lines
> diff --git a/tree-diff.c b/tree-diff.c
> index cd659c6..2fb670b 100644
> --- a/tree-diff.c
> +++ b/tree-diff.c
> @@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ static int compare_tree_entry(struct tree_desc *t1, struct
> tree_desc *t2, const
> * - zero for no
> * - negative for "no, and no subsequent entries will be either"
> */
> -static int tree_entry_interesting(struct tree_desc *desc, const char *base,
> int baselen, struct diff_options *opt)
> +int tree_entry_interesting(struct tree_desc *desc, const char *base, int
> baselen, struct diff_options *opt)
> {
> const char *path;
> const unsigned char *sha1;While at it, can you please also fix its comments? The comments say pathspec while what it uses is actually path prefix. Maybe something like this
diff --git a/tree-diff.c b/tree-diff.c index 3c34c77..514dbca 100644 --- a/tree-diff.c +++ b/tree-diff.c @@ -83,7 +83,7 @@ static int compare_tree_entry(struct tree_desc *t1, struct tree_desc *t2, const } /* - * Is a tree entry interesting given the pathspec we have? + * Is a tree entry interesting given the path prefix we have? * * Return: * - 2 for "yes, and all subsequent entries will be" This patch is good stuff. Please be informed I will steal this patch for my narrow use.
-- Duy