Re: [GSoC PATCH v2] rm: fix sign comparison warnings

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Arnav Bhate <bhatearnav@gmail.com> writes:

> -static int get_ours_cache_pos(const char *path, int pos)
> +static int get_ours_cache_pos(const char *path, unsigned int inverted_pos)

This renaming of parameter is not right.  

At this point when the value comes to this function, it *IS* the
position, there is nothing inverted about it.  It points at the
position in the .cache[] array where an cache_entry at a higher
stage would appear.

It is perfectly fine to state that the value that is returned from
index_name_pos() is potentially inverted.  The function is given a
path name (without any stage information) and

 - returns a non-negative number, the position in the .cache[] array,
   where a cache_entry at stage #0 (i.e. an entry for a path that does
   not require conflict resolution), or

 - returns a negative number, when there is no such cache_entry
   exists.  The caller can "invert" the value to recover a position
   in the .cache[] array, where a cache_entry for the path at stage
   #0 _would_ _have_ been found, if existed.  Due to the way the
   cache entries are sorted in the .cache[] array, when you are
   interested in finding cache entries for a path at higher stages,
   like this function is, you can start scanning at this point until
   you see an entry for a different path.

Calling the parameter "pos" is the right thing to do.  The value
used to come here _could_ have been called "inverted", and the
result of (-inverted_pos-1) can be assigned to "pos".  But because
the patch moves the inversion to the caller, what the code in the
while loop sees is no longer "inverted".

>  {
> -	int i = -pos - 1;
> -
> -	while ((i < the_repository->index->cache_nr) && !strcmp(the_repository->index->cache[i]->name, path)) {
> -		if (ce_stage(the_repository->index->cache[i]) == 2)
> -			return i;
> -		i++;
> +	while ((inverted_pos < the_repository->index->cache_nr) && !strcmp(the_repository->index->cache[inverted_pos]->name, path)) {
> +		if (ce_stage(the_repository->index->cache[inverted_pos]) == 2)
> +			return inverted_pos;
> +		inverted_pos++;
>  	}
>  	return -1;
>  }
> @@ -58,7 +55,7 @@ static void print_error_files(struct string_list *files_list,
>  			      int *errs)
>  {
>  	if (files_list->nr) {
> -		int i;
> +		unsigned int i;
>  		struct strbuf err_msg = STRBUF_INIT;
>  
>  		strbuf_addstr(&err_msg, main_msg);
> @@ -83,7 +80,7 @@ static void submodules_absorb_gitdir_if_needed(void)
>  
>  		pos = index_name_pos(the_repository->index, name, strlen(name));
>  		if (pos < 0) {

Here is where the caller notices that index_name_pos() did not see a
stage #0 entry.  This caller wants to see "ours" entry at stage #2,
so it "inverts" the returned value and asks the helper function if
it sees such an entry in the .cache[] array.

A handful of prerequisite pieces of knowledge to understand this
code are:

 - The index (i.e. the .cache[] array) is sorted by full path name
   (down from the top level of the working tree).

 - The index can have at most one stage #0 entry for each path name.
   When a stage #0 entry exists for a path name, there cannot be
   higher stage entries (the path is called "resolved").

 - The cache entries in the .cache[] array for the same path name
   are sorted by their stage number.

 - There can be at most one stage #2 entry for each path name, which
   are called "ours".  Entries at stage #1 are from common ancestor,
   entries at stage #3 are from "their" tree.  These higher (i.e.
   more than zero) stage entries appear only for "conflicting"
   paths in the .cache[] array.

With the understanding above, you can see why "our" position is
computed only when index_name_pos() returns negative in this hunk.

> -			pos = get_ours_cache_pos(name, pos);
> +			pos = get_ours_cache_pos(name, -pos - 1);
>  			if (pos < 0)
>  				continue;
>  		}
> @@ -131,7 +128,7 @@ static int check_local_mod(struct object_id *head, int index_only)
>  			 * Skip unmerged entries except for populated submodules
>  			 * that could lose history when removed.
>  			 */
> -			pos = get_ours_cache_pos(name, pos);
> +			pos = get_ours_cache_pos(name, -pos - 1);
>  			if (pos < 0)
>  				continue;

The above hunks are perfectly fine.  

> @@ -314,7 +311,7 @@ int cmd_rm(int argc,
>  	if (pathspec_needs_expanded_index(the_repository->index, &pathspec))
>  		ensure_full_index(the_repository->index);
>  
> -	for (i = 0; i < the_repository->index->cache_nr; i++) {
> +	for (unsigned int i = 0; i < the_repository->index->cache_nr; i++) {
>  		const struct cache_entry *ce = the_repository->index->cache[i];
>  
>  		if (!include_sparse &&

OK.

Thanks.