Re: [PATCH 3/3] verify_path: consider dos drive prefix

> Erik Faye-Lund <kusmabite@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>> Nitpick: If you already know that c != '\0' and !is_dir_sep(c), then why do
>>> continue? It will check for '\0' and is_dir_sep(c) again, but you already
>>> know that both ifs will be false. So you could just as easy jump straight to
>>> c = *path++, which IMHO also makes the code easier to follow:
>>
>> Very good point, thanks for noticing. I just rewrote the logic from
>> switch/case to if/else, but with the rewrite these redundant compares
>> became more obvious. I think your version is better, indeed.
>
> Let's not add an unnecessary goto while at it.  How about this on top
> instead?
>
>  read-cache.c |   13 +++----------
>  1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/read-cache.c b/read-cache.c
> index 31cf0b5..3593291 100644
> --- a/read-cache.c
> +++ b/read-cache.c
> @@ -784,16 +784,9 @@ int verify_path(const char *path)
>                if (is_dir_sep(c)) {
>  inside:
>                        c = *path++;
> -                       switch (c) {
> -                       default:
> -                               continue;
> -                       case '/': case '\0':
> -                               break;
> -                       case '.':
> -                               if (verify_dotfile(path))
> -                                       continue;
> -                       }
> -                       return 0;
> +                       if ((c == '.' && !verify_dotfile(path)) ||
> +                           is_dir_sep(c) || c == '\0')
> +                               return 0;
>                }
>                c = *path++;
>        }