Re: [PATCH] receive-pack: simplify run_update_post_hook()
- From
René Scharfe <l.s.r@web.de>
- Date
- Mar 17, 2017, 23:21 UTC
- Message-ID
- <f61a1089-833b-2883-deab-f97cb77cef96@web.de>
- In-Reply-To
- <20170317222320.nsg3yk3nopjadr5t@sigill.intra.peff.net>
Am 17.03.2017 um 23:23 schrieb Jeff King:
Show 36 quoted lines
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 11:02:13PM +0100, René Scharfe wrote:
>
>> Instead of counting the arguments to see if there are any and then
>> building the full command use a single loop and add the hook command
>> just before the first argument. This reduces duplication and overall
>> code size.
>
> Yeah, I agree one loop is nicer.
>
>> - argv_array_push(&proc.args, hook);
>> for (cmd = commands; cmd; cmd = cmd->next) {
>> if (cmd->error_string || cmd->did_not_exist)
>> continue;
>> + if (!proc.args.argc)
>> + argv_array_push(&proc.args, hook);
>> argv_array_push(&proc.args, cmd->ref_name);
>> }
>> + if (!proc.args.argc)
>> + return;
>
> It looks at first like the result leaks, because you have to realize
> that the push will modify proc.args.argc. I wonder if:
>
> argv_array_push(&proc.args, hook);
> for (cmd = commands; cmd; cmd = cmd->next) {
> if (!cmd->error_string && !cmd->did_not_exist)
> argv_array_push(&proc.args, cmd->ref_name);
> }
>
> if (proc.args.argc == 1) {
> argv_array_clear(&proc.args);
> return;
> }
>
> would be more obvious (at the cost of a pointless malloc in the corner
> case. I can live with it either way.Sure, that's even simpler. I don't know how often the no-args branch would be taken and if the extra allocation would even matter -- that's why I tried to avoid it -- but probably the answers are not often and not much. The only test case that hits it is for the deletion of a non-existent ref.
René