Julian Foad wrote:
> Hi Stefan.
>
> Please edit the log message for this rev.
Done for r1296596.
> (I assume you'll revisit this soon, as my original comment still stands. Sorry if it was confusing. What I meant, basically, is that the function doesn't return what the doc string says it will return, AFAICT. Quite likely it's the doc string that's wrong.)
>
> - Julian
r1310770 should address that issue now.
-- Stefan^2.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Stefan Fuhrmann<stefanfuhrmann_at_alice-dsl.de>
>> To:
>> Cc: dev_at_subversion.apache.org
>> Sent: Sunday, 4 March 2012, 23:48
>> Subject: Re: svn commit: r1296596 - /subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_delta/xdelta.c
>>
>> On 04.03.2012 11:42, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>>> stefan2_at_apache.org wrote on Sat, Mar 03, 2012 at 10:53:16 -0000:
>>>> Author: stefan2
>>>> Date: Sat Mar 3 10:53:16 2012
>>>> New Revision: 1296596
>>>>
>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1296596&view=rev
>>>> Log:
>>>> * subversion/libsvn_delta/xdelta.c
>>>> (reverse_match_length): actually return MAX_LEN if MAX_LEN chars
>> match.
>>>> Found by: julianfoad
>>>>
>>>> Modified:
>>>> subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_delta/xdelta.c
>>>>
>>>> Modified: subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_delta/xdelta.c
>>>> URL:
>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_delta/xdelta.c?rev=1296596&r1=1296595&r2=1296596&view=diff
>> ==============================================================================
>>>> --- subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_delta/xdelta.c (original)
>>>> +++ subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_delta/xdelta.c Sat Mar 3
>> 10:53:16 2012
>>>> @@ -260,11 +260,15 @@ reverse_match_length(const char *a, cons
>>>>
>>>> #endif
>>>>
>>>> + /* If we find a mismatch at -pos, pos-1 characters matched.
>>>> + */
>>>> while (++pos<= max_len)
>>>> if (a[0-pos] != b[0-pos])
>>>> - break;
>>>> + return pos - 1;
>>>>
>>>> - return pos-1;
>>>> + /* No mismatch found -> at least MAX_LEN machting chars.
>>>> + */
>>>> + return max_len;
>>> I may be blind, but isn't the code before this diff and after it
>>> equivalent?
>>>
>>> Both the old and new code return POS-1 when the if() statement is
>>> entered, and if the code falls off the end of the while() loop then
>>> necessarily POS=1+MAX_LEN, again meaning that the old and new code are
>>> equivalent.
>> You are right. It's been too early in the morning
>> for me and Julian's comment got me confused.
>> But at least, the code slightly clearer now.
>>
>> -- Stefan^2.
>>
Received on 2012-04-07 16:12:07 CEST