[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: [PATCH] Fix fsfs finalization memory usage

From: <kfogel_at_collab.net>
Date: 2004-11-01 19:21:49 CET

Eric Gillespie <epg@pretzelnet.org> writes:
> > You could move the initial read_change() call right up against the
> > 'while' loop, and add a comment to indicate that that first call is
> > really the start of the loop -- the initialization stage of the loop,
> > in a sense.
> Look at the bit i re-quoted above. change is the loop condition,
> so moving read_change to the top and losing the one outside the
> loop doesn't work.

No, you'd just have to have an

   if (! change)

at the top of the loop. (I assumed this to be part of the standard
transformation from 'while' to 'do-while', sorry for not being more

> > But I think a better option would be to switch to a 'do-while' loop,
> > and put the single read_change() call at the start of the loop.
> I'd have to go for this nastiness:
> do
> {
> SVN_ERR (read_change (&change, file, iterpool));
> if (!change)
> break;
> ...

Heh. I hadn't even read this part yet when I wrote the above :-).

> I think it's best the way it is.

Then do at least add a comment explaining why using iterpool in that
inital call to read_change() is not an abuse of iterpool's meaning.
That would help clarify why the general pattern here is not like our
usual loop-pool pattern.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Nov 1 21:15:40 2004

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.