[PATCH] rev-parse: fix --parse-opt --keep-dashdash --stop-at-non-option

[PATCH] rev-parse: fix --parse-opt --keep-dashdash --stop-at-non-option

[Uwe Kleine-König]

The ?: operator has a lower priority than |, so the implicit associativity
made the 6th argument of parse_options be PARSE_OPT_KEEP_DASHDASH if
keep_dashdash was true discarding PARSE_OPT_STOP_AT_NON_OPTION and
PARSE_OPT_SHELL_EVAL.

Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
---
 builtin/rev-parse.c           |    4 ++--
 t/t1502-rev-parse-parseopt.sh |   17 +++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/builtin/rev-parse.c b/builtin/rev-parse.c
index b676e29..a5a1c86 100644
--- a/builtin/rev-parse.c
+++ b/builtin/rev-parse.c
@@ -407,8 +407,8 @@ static int cmd_parseopt(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
 	ALLOC_GROW(opts, onb + 1, osz);
 	memset(opts + onb, 0, sizeof(opts[onb]));
 	argc = parse_options(argc, argv, prefix, opts, usage,
-			keep_dashdash ? PARSE_OPT_KEEP_DASHDASH : 0 |
-			stop_at_non_option ? PARSE_OPT_STOP_AT_NON_OPTION : 0 |
+			(keep_dashdash ? PARSE_OPT_KEEP_DASHDASH : 0) |
+			(stop_at_non_option ? PARSE_OPT_STOP_AT_NON_OPTION : 0) |
 			PARSE_OPT_SHELL_EVAL);
 
 	strbuf_addf(&parsed, " --");
diff --git a/t/t1502-rev-parse-parseopt.sh b/t/t1502-rev-parse-parseopt.sh
index 4346795..17c210c 100755
--- a/t/t1502-rev-parse-parseopt.sh
+++ b/t/t1502-rev-parse-parseopt.sh
@@ -81,4 +81,21 @@ test_expect_success 'test --parseopt --keep-dashdash' '
 	test_cmp expect output
 '
 
+cat > expect <<EOF
+set -- --foo -- '--' 'arg' '--spam=ham'
+EOF
+
+test_expect_success 'test --parseopt --keep-dashdash --stop-at-non-option with --' '
+	git rev-parse --parseopt --keep-dashdash --stop-at-non-option -- --foo -- arg --spam=ham < optionspec > output &&
+	test_cmp expect output
+'
+
+cat > expect <<EOF
+set -- --foo -- 'arg' '--spam=ham'
+EOF
+
+test_expect_success 'test --parseopt --keep-dashdash --stop-at-non-option without --' '
+	git rev-parse --parseopt --keep-dashdash --stop-at-non-option -- --foo arg --spam=ham < optionspec > output &&
+	test_cmp expect output
+'
 test_done
-- 
1.7.1

Re: [PATCH] rev-parse: fix --parse-opt --keep-dashdash --stop-at-non-option

[Junio C Hamano]

Uwe Kleine-König  <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> writes:

> The ?: operator has a lower priority than |, so the implicit associativity
> made the 6th argument of parse_options be PARSE_OPT_KEEP_DASHDASH if
> keep_dashdash was true discarding PARSE_OPT_STOP_AT_NON_OPTION and
> PARSE_OPT_SHELL_EVAL.

Wow, this is an age-old breakage dating back to 6e0800e (parse-opt: make
PARSE_OPT_STOP_AT_NON_OPTION available to git rev-parse, 2009-06-14) that
dates back to the very original --stop-at-non-option patch, isn't it?

I wonder if I should issue an updated maintenance release v1.6.4.5 ;-)

Thanks.

Re: [PATCH] rev-parse: fix --parse-opt --keep-dashdash --stop-at-non-option

[Uwe Kleine-König]

On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 02:41:33PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Uwe Kleine-König  <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> writes:
> 
> > The ?: operator has a lower priority than |, so the implicit associativity
> > made the 6th argument of parse_options be PARSE_OPT_KEEP_DASHDASH if
> > keep_dashdash was true discarding PARSE_OPT_STOP_AT_NON_OPTION and
> > PARSE_OPT_SHELL_EVAL.
> 
> Wow, this is an age-old breakage dating back to 6e0800e (parse-opt: make
> PARSE_OPT_STOP_AT_NON_OPTION available to git rev-parse, 2009-06-14) that
> dates back to the very original --stop-at-non-option patch, isn't it?
Yeah, the author of 6e0800e should get a pat on his head and a lesson in
C. :-)

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |

Re: [PATCH] rev-parse: fix --parse-opt --keep-dashdash --stop-at-non-option

[Uwe Kleine-König]

On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 02:41:33PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Uwe Kleine-König  <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> writes:
> 
> > The ?: operator has a lower priority than |, so the implicit associativity
> > made the 6th argument of parse_options be PARSE_OPT_KEEP_DASHDASH if
> > keep_dashdash was true discarding PARSE_OPT_STOP_AT_NON_OPTION and
> > PARSE_OPT_SHELL_EVAL.
> 
> Wow, this is an age-old breakage dating back to 6e0800e (parse-opt: make
> PARSE_OPT_STOP_AT_NON_OPTION available to git rev-parse, 2009-06-14) that
> dates back to the very original --stop-at-non-option patch, isn't it?
I made a quick C-quiz at my company asking what's wrong with 6e0800e.

Apart from the bug fixed in my patch a colleague wondered about
stop_at_non_option being static.  I think it doesn't do any harm, still
I think being an automatic variable would be more common.  Is the static
intended here?  This was introduced in
21d4783538662143ef52ed6967c948ab27586232, so I cc:d Pierre.

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |

Re: [PATCH] rev-parse: fix --parse-opt --keep-dashdash --stop-at-non-option

[Pierre Habouzit]

On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 09:26:23AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 02:41:33PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > Uwe Kleine-König  <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> writes:
> > 
> > > The ?: operator has a lower priority than |, so the implicit associativity
> > > made the 6th argument of parse_options be PARSE_OPT_KEEP_DASHDASH if
> > > keep_dashdash was true discarding PARSE_OPT_STOP_AT_NON_OPTION and
> > > PARSE_OPT_SHELL_EVAL.
> > 
> > Wow, this is an age-old breakage dating back to 6e0800e (parse-opt: make
> > PARSE_OPT_STOP_AT_NON_OPTION available to git rev-parse, 2009-06-14) that
> > dates back to the very original --stop-at-non-option patch, isn't it?
> I made a quick C-quiz at my company asking what's wrong with 6e0800e.
> 
> Apart from the bug fixed in my patch a colleague wondered about
> stop_at_non_option being static.  I think it doesn't do any harm, still
> I think being an automatic variable would be more common.  Is the static
> intended here?  This was introduced in
> 21d4783538662143ef52ed6967c948ab27586232, so I cc:d Pierre.

Well, the sole difference is that it makes &stop_at_non_option been
computed at compile time instead of runtime, which is pretty much the
same. cmd_parseopt isn't meant to be reentrant so it's not important.
-- 
·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O                                                madcoder@debian.org
OOO                                                http://www.madism.org

Re: [PATCH] rev-parse: fix --parse-opt --keep-dashdash --stop-at-non-option

[Uwe Kleine-König]

Hi Pierre,

On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 12:18:48PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 09:26:23AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 02:41:33PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > > Uwe Kleine-König  <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> writes:
> > > 
> > > > The ?: operator has a lower priority than |, so the implicit associativity
> > > > made the 6th argument of parse_options be PARSE_OPT_KEEP_DASHDASH if
> > > > keep_dashdash was true discarding PARSE_OPT_STOP_AT_NON_OPTION and
> > > > PARSE_OPT_SHELL_EVAL.
> > > 
> > > Wow, this is an age-old breakage dating back to 6e0800e (parse-opt: make
> > > PARSE_OPT_STOP_AT_NON_OPTION available to git rev-parse, 2009-06-14) that
> > > dates back to the very original --stop-at-non-option patch, isn't it?
> > I made a quick C-quiz at my company asking what's wrong with 6e0800e.
> > 
> > Apart from the bug fixed in my patch a colleague wondered about
> > stop_at_non_option being static.  I think it doesn't do any harm, still
> > I think being an automatic variable would be more common.  Is the static
> > intended here?  This was introduced in
> > 21d4783538662143ef52ed6967c948ab27586232, so I cc:d Pierre.
> 
> Well, the sole difference is that it makes &stop_at_non_option been
> computed at compile time instead of runtime, which is pretty much the
> same. cmd_parseopt isn't meant to be reentrant so it's not important.
I don't know about x86, but I think on arm computing at compile time
isn't cheaper than at runtime, it's just pc-relative instead of
sp-relative.  But having the variable automatic saves a bit of heap.
Probably not worth to discuss about these two ints though.

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |