* [PATCH] object: make add_object_array_with_mode a static function
@ 2014-10-18 23:19 Ramsay Jones
2014-10-19 2:03 ` Jeff King
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Ramsay Jones @ 2014-10-18 23:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff King; +Cc: Junio C Hamano, GIT Mailing-list
Signed-off-by: Ramsay Jones <ramsay@ramsay1.demon.co.uk>
---
Hi Jeff,
I noticed that your 'jk/prune-mtime' branch also removes the only
call to the add_object_array_with_mode() function outside of the
object.c file; specifically commit 75ac69fa ("traverse_commit_list:
support pending blobs/trees with paths", 15-10-2014).
This patch (which was generated using the '--histogram' option to
format-patch), moves the function to before the definition of the
add_object_array() function (to avoid a forward declaration), and
makes it static.
If you need to re-roll this branch, could you please squash this
patch into the above commit. (again, assuming you have no plans
to add new external callers.)
[If new external callers are very likely in the future (i.e. this
function is an essential part of the object-array API), then it may
well not be worth doing this. (with perhaps a note in the commit
message? - dunno). Similar comments apply to the previous 'add_object'
patch as well!]
Thanks!
ATB,
Ramsay Jones
object.c | 10 +++++-----
object.h | 1 -
2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/object.c b/object.c
index df86bdd..e1ef3f9 100644
--- a/object.c
+++ b/object.c
@@ -339,16 +339,16 @@ void add_object_array_with_path(struct object *obj, const char *name,
array->nr = ++nr;
}
+static void add_object_array_with_mode(struct object *obj, const char *name, struct object_array *array, unsigned mode)
+{
+ add_object_array_with_path(obj, name, array, mode, NULL);
+}
+
void add_object_array(struct object *obj, const char *name, struct object_array *array)
{
add_object_array_with_mode(obj, name, array, S_IFINVALID);
}
-void add_object_array_with_mode(struct object *obj, const char *name, struct object_array *array, unsigned mode)
-{
- add_object_array_with_path(obj, name, array, mode, NULL);
-}
-
/*
* Free all memory associated with an entry; the result is
* in an unspecified state and should not be examined.
diff --git a/object.h b/object.h
index e5178a5..6416247 100644
--- a/object.h
+++ b/object.h
@@ -114,7 +114,6 @@ int object_list_contains(struct object_list *list, struct object *obj);
/* Object array handling .. */
void add_object_array(struct object *obj, const char *name, struct object_array *array);
-void add_object_array_with_mode(struct object *obj, const char *name, struct object_array *array, unsigned mode);
void add_object_array_with_path(struct object *obj, const char *name, struct object_array *array, unsigned mode, const char *path);
typedef int (*object_array_each_func_t)(struct object_array_entry *, void *);
--
2.1.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] object: make add_object_array_with_mode a static function
2014-10-18 23:19 [PATCH] object: make add_object_array_with_mode a static function Ramsay Jones
@ 2014-10-19 2:03 ` Jeff King
2014-10-19 10:21 ` Ramsay Jones
2014-10-20 16:21 ` Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Jeff King @ 2014-10-19 2:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ramsay Jones; +Cc: Junio C Hamano, GIT Mailing-list
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 12:19:07AM +0100, Ramsay Jones wrote:
> I noticed that your 'jk/prune-mtime' branch also removes the only
> call to the add_object_array_with_mode() function outside of the
> object.c file; specifically commit 75ac69fa ("traverse_commit_list:
> support pending blobs/trees with paths", 15-10-2014).
>
> This patch (which was generated using the '--histogram' option to
> format-patch), moves the function to before the definition of the
> add_object_array() function (to avoid a forward declaration), and
> makes it static.
>
> If you need to re-roll this branch, could you please squash this
> patch into the above commit. (again, assuming you have no plans
> to add new external callers.)
That seems reasonable. Because it's a code movement, I'd actually be
just as happy with it as a separate patch, where it's more obvious what
is going on.
> [If new external callers are very likely in the future (i.e. this
> function is an essential part of the object-array API), then it may
> well not be worth doing this. (with perhaps a note in the commit
> message? - dunno). Similar comments apply to the previous 'add_object'
> patch as well!]
I actually wondered while writing this series whether anyone actually
_uses_ the mode in object_array (the new code I added sets it to the
appropriate value to be on the safe side, but traverse_commit_list does
not actually care about it).
Digging in the history, it looks like it is used for blob-to-blob diffs
(see 01618a3, "use mode of the tree in git-diff, if <tree>:<file> syntax
is used", 2007-04-22). And that still seems to be the case today. It's a
shame we have to keep such complication around for one single case
(especially because getting it wrong in other cases is likely to go
unnoticed for years), but I think it would probably require major
surgery to extract it.
I think we can take your patch a step further, though, like:
-- >8 --
Subject: [PATCH] drop add_object_array_with_mode
This is a thin compatibility wrapper around
add_pending_object_with_path. But the only caller is
add_object_array, which is itself just a thin compatibility
wrapper. There are no external callers, so we can just
remove this middle wrapper.
Noticed-by: Ramsay Jones <ramsay@ramsay1.demon.co.uk>
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
---
I also wondered if add_pending_object_with_mode could get the same
treatment. But we _do_ use it in setup_revisions and friends when we
parse something like "HEAD:foo". It would be trivial here to call
add_pending_object_with_path instead, and actually feed "foo". That
would mean that "git rev-list --objects HEAD:foo" reported the pathname
"foo" alongside the object. Or if "foo" is a tree, all of its sub-parts
would be "foo/whatever" instead of just "whatever". That seems somewhat
sensible to me, but I would be unsurprised if it broke some weird corner
case that is expecting paths to be relative to the given tree.
object.c | 7 +------
object.h | 1 -
2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/object.c b/object.c
index df86bdd..23d6c96 100644
--- a/object.c
+++ b/object.c
@@ -341,12 +341,7 @@ void add_object_array_with_path(struct object *obj, const char *name,
void add_object_array(struct object *obj, const char *name, struct object_array *array)
{
- add_object_array_with_mode(obj, name, array, S_IFINVALID);
-}
-
-void add_object_array_with_mode(struct object *obj, const char *name, struct object_array *array, unsigned mode)
-{
- add_object_array_with_path(obj, name, array, mode, NULL);
+ add_object_array_with_path(obj, name, array, S_IFINVALID, NULL);
}
/*
diff --git a/object.h b/object.h
index e5178a5..6416247 100644
--- a/object.h
+++ b/object.h
@@ -114,7 +114,6 @@ int object_list_contains(struct object_list *list, struct object *obj);
/* Object array handling .. */
void add_object_array(struct object *obj, const char *name, struct object_array *array);
-void add_object_array_with_mode(struct object *obj, const char *name, struct object_array *array, unsigned mode);
void add_object_array_with_path(struct object *obj, const char *name, struct object_array *array, unsigned mode, const char *path);
typedef int (*object_array_each_func_t)(struct object_array_entry *, void *);
--
2.1.2.596.g7379948
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] object: make add_object_array_with_mode a static function
2014-10-19 2:03 ` Jeff King
@ 2014-10-19 10:21 ` Ramsay Jones
2014-10-20 16:21 ` Junio C Hamano
1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Ramsay Jones @ 2014-10-19 10:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff King; +Cc: Junio C Hamano, GIT Mailing-list
On 19/10/14 03:03, Jeff King wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 12:19:07AM +0100, Ramsay Jones wrote:
>
[snip]
> I actually wondered while writing this series whether anyone actually
> _uses_ the mode in object_array (the new code I added sets it to the
> appropriate value to be on the safe side, but traverse_commit_list does
> not actually care about it).
>
> Digging in the history, it looks like it is used for blob-to-blob diffs
> (see 01618a3, "use mode of the tree in git-diff, if <tree>:<file> syntax
> is used", 2007-04-22). And that still seems to be the case today. It's a
> shame we have to keep such complication around for one single case
> (especially because getting it wrong in other cases is likely to go
> unnoticed for years), but I think it would probably require major
> surgery to extract it.
>
> I think we can take your patch a step further, though, like:
Yes, I'm always in favour of removing unused code! :-D
>
> -- >8 --
> Subject: [PATCH] drop add_object_array_with_mode
>
> This is a thin compatibility wrapper around
> add_pending_object_with_path. But the only caller is
> add_object_array, which is itself just a thin compatibility
> wrapper. There are no external callers, so we can just
> remove this middle wrapper.
>
> Noticed-by: Ramsay Jones <ramsay@ramsay1.demon.co.uk>
> Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
> ---
> I also wondered if add_pending_object_with_mode could get the same
> treatment. But we _do_ use it in setup_revisions and friends when we
> parse something like "HEAD:foo". It would be trivial here to call
> add_pending_object_with_path instead, and actually feed "foo". That
> would mean that "git rev-list --objects HEAD:foo" reported the pathname
> "foo" alongside the object. Or if "foo" is a tree, all of its sub-parts
> would be "foo/whatever" instead of just "whatever". That seems somewhat
> sensible to me, but I would be unsurprised if it broke some weird corner
> case that is expecting paths to be relative to the given tree.
>
> object.c | 7 +------
> object.h | 1 -
> 2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/object.c b/object.c
> index df86bdd..23d6c96 100644
> --- a/object.c
> +++ b/object.c
> @@ -341,12 +341,7 @@ void add_object_array_with_path(struct object *obj, const char *name,
>
> void add_object_array(struct object *obj, const char *name, struct object_array *array)
> {
> - add_object_array_with_mode(obj, name, array, S_IFINVALID);
> -}
> -
> -void add_object_array_with_mode(struct object *obj, const char *name, struct object_array *array, unsigned mode)
> -{
> - add_object_array_with_path(obj, name, array, mode, NULL);
> + add_object_array_with_path(obj, name, array, S_IFINVALID, NULL);
> }
>
> /*
> diff --git a/object.h b/object.h
> index e5178a5..6416247 100644
> --- a/object.h
> +++ b/object.h
> @@ -114,7 +114,6 @@ int object_list_contains(struct object_list *list, struct object *obj);
>
> /* Object array handling .. */
> void add_object_array(struct object *obj, const char *name, struct object_array *array);
> -void add_object_array_with_mode(struct object *obj, const char *name, struct object_array *array, unsigned mode);
> void add_object_array_with_path(struct object *obj, const char *name, struct object_array *array, unsigned mode, const char *path);
>
> typedef int (*object_array_each_func_t)(struct object_array_entry *, void *);
>
Yep, this is a better patch.
Thanks!
ATB,
Ramsay Jones
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] object: make add_object_array_with_mode a static function
2014-10-19 2:03 ` Jeff King
2014-10-19 10:21 ` Ramsay Jones
@ 2014-10-20 16:21 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-10-20 17:03 ` Jeff King
1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2014-10-20 16:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff King; +Cc: Ramsay Jones, GIT Mailing-list
Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> I think we can take your patch a step further, though, like:
>
> -- >8 --
> Subject: [PATCH] drop add_object_array_with_mode
> ...
Thanks. I think I picked up all incrementals in this thread, but
please holler if I missed anything.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] object: make add_object_array_with_mode a static function
2014-10-20 16:21 ` Junio C Hamano
@ 2014-10-20 17:03 ` Jeff King
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Jeff King @ 2014-10-20 17:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: Ramsay Jones, GIT Mailing-list
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 09:21:24AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
>
> > I think we can take your patch a step further, though, like:
> >
> > -- >8 --
> > Subject: [PATCH] drop add_object_array_with_mode
> > ...
>
> Thanks. I think I picked up all incrementals in this thread, but
> please holler if I missed anything.
I just checked it (using Thomas's excellent "tbdiff" tool) and you have
everything. Thanks, and sorry for feeding it so piecemeal. :)
-Peff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2014-10-20 17:03 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2014-10-18 23:19 [PATCH] object: make add_object_array_with_mode a static function Ramsay Jones
2014-10-19 2:03 ` Jeff King
2014-10-19 10:21 ` Ramsay Jones
2014-10-20 16:21 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-10-20 17:03 ` Jeff King
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).