Re: [Annoyance] "git log .." thinks ".." is ambiguous

[Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net>]

Joshua Juran venit, vidit, dixit 03.05.2011 10:17:
> On May 2, 2011, at 11:33 PM, Michael J Gruber wrote:
> 
>> Joshua Juran venit, vidit, dixit 03.05.2011 03:57:
>>> On May 2, 2011, at 12:15 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>>
>>>> diff --git a/revision.c b/revision.c
>>>> index f4b8b38..26271d1 100644
>>>> --- a/revision.c
>>>> +++ b/revision.c
>>>> @@ -905,14 +905,26 @@ int handle_revision_arg(const char *arg,
>>>> struct rev_info *revs,
>>>> 		const char *this = arg;
>>>> 		int symmetric = *next == '.';
>>>> 		unsigned int flags_exclude = flags ^ UNINTERESTING;
>>>> +		static const char head_by_default[] = "HEAD";
>>>>
>>>> 		*dotdot = 0;
>>>> 		next += symmetric;
>>>>
>>>> 		if (!*next)
>>>> -			next = "HEAD";
>>>> +			next = head_by_default;
>>>> 		if (dotdot == arg)
>>>> -			this = "HEAD";
>>>> +			this = head_by_default;
>>>> +		if (this == head_by_default && next == head_by_default &&
>>>> +		    !symmetric) {
>>>
>>> Is there a reason not to write
>>>
>>> 	const char *head_by_default = "HEAD";
>>>
>>> or even
>>>
>>> 	const char *const head_by_default = "HEAD";
>>>
>>> instead?  Loading a static array and checking an init flag is a
>>> pessimization versus just pointing into a read-only segment.
>>
>> Because of the comparisons later on: this == "HEAD" is not the same.
> 
> Sorry if I was unclear.  I meant to replace only the 'static const  
> char head_by_default[] = "HEAD";' line and leave the rest of the patch  
> unchanged.
> 
> My recollection is that Metrowerks C will statically allocate read- 
> write storage (duplicating the read-only copy of the string) and copy  
> the string into it at runtime.  It only copies the string once, which  
> is ensured by checking an internally generated flag (also statically  
> allocated) every time the scope containing the declaration is  
> executed.  This is the pessimization I speak of.
> 
> By contrast, my suggestion allocates a single pointer on the stack  
> regardless of compiler optimization.

I see, sorry, I misread your suggestion. Junio will have to answer for
himself then ;)

Michael