From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2013 00:04:55 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 7/7] unpack-trees: free cache_entry array members for merges
Message-ID: <CAMP44s2HotyK7hh0nFjCe+BBtu1pyqmkn6=yt9WV6UyhxjrXoQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <51ABD99A.2030303@lsrfire.ath.cx>

On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 6:47 PM, René Scharfe
<rene.scharfe@lsrfire.ath.cx> wrote:
> Am 03.06.2013 01:23, schrieb Felipe Contreras:
>
>> I didn't say we should do 'if (ce) free(ce);' instead of 'free(ce);' I
>> said we should do 'if (cd && ce != o->df_conflict_entry)' instead of
>> 'if (ce != o->df_conflict_entry)'.
>
>
> I did assume you meant the latter.
>
>
>> There's no reason not to.
>
>
> Only the minor ones already mentioned: More text,

Five characters.

> one more branch in object
> code,

Which might actually be more optimal.

> no benefit except for some hypothetical future case that's caught by
> the test suite anyway -- or by code review.

That's not the benefit, the benefit is that the code is clearer.

> I wonder if we already reached the point where we spent more time discussing
> this change than the time needed by the envisioned developer to find and fix
> the NULL check that suddenly became necessary. :)

Maybe, but if what you want is to avoid the discussion, you could just
add the extra five characters and be done with it.

-- 
Felipe Contreras