From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: Stefan Beller <stefanbeller@gmail.com>
Cc: Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de, barkalow@iabervon.org, git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] unpack-tree.c: remove dead code
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 11:13:21 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqqha1h60fy.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1407786268-15249-1-git-send-email-stefanbeller@gmail.com> (Stefan Beller's message of "Mon, 11 Aug 2014 21:44:28 +0200")
Stefan Beller <stefanbeller@gmail.com> writes:
> In line 1763 of unpack-tree.c we have a condition on the current tree
> if (current) {
> ...
> Within this block of code we can assume current to be non NULL, hence
> the code after the statement in line 1796:
> if (current)
> return ...
>
> cannot be reached.
>
> The proposed patch here changes the order of the current tree and the
> newtree part. I'm not sure if that's the right way to handle it.
If the existing code decides to reject the merge and falls into that
code path, src[0] aka current is not NULL at that point as you
noticed, and we would call reject_merge(current, o); we would keep
doing so after this "remove dead code" patch is applied.
If you remove the dead code, which are the inner check for current,
reject_merge() call with newtree and the final fallback of returning
-1, then it would be a faithful "remove dead code without changing
anything else" update.
Having said that, I think current/newtree/oldtree are used in the
call to reject_merge() *only* for their path aka ce->name, and they
all point at the same name (there is no rename funkies here); hence
"all other failures" code path should just rely on current always
being present and become something like this instead:
/* 20 or 21 */
...
} else if (o->gently) {
return -1;
} else {
return reject_merge(current, o);
}
Thanks.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-08-12 18:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-08-11 19:44 [PATCH] unpack-tree.c: remove dead code Stefan Beller
2014-08-12 18:13 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2014-08-12 21:15 ` Stefan Beller
2014-08-12 22:24 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-08-12 23:57 ` [PATCH 0/3] " Jonathan Nieder
2014-08-12 23:59 ` [PATCH 1/3] unpack-trees: simplify 'all other failures' case Jonathan Nieder
2014-08-13 0:00 ` [PATCH 2/3] unpack-trees: use 'cuddled' style for if-else cascade Jonathan Nieder
2014-08-13 14:52 ` Ronnie Sahlberg
2014-08-13 0:03 ` [PATCH 3/3] checkout -m: attempt merge when deletion of path was staged Jonathan Nieder
2014-08-13 0:38 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-08-13 17:48 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-08-13 18:59 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-08-13 19:30 ` Johannes Sixt
2014-08-13 20:02 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-08-13 6:41 ` [PATCH 0/3] Re: [PATCH] unpack-tree.c: remove dead code Stefan Beller
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=xmqqha1h60fy.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com \
--to=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de \
--cc=barkalow@iabervon.org \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=stefanbeller@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.