> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bert Huijben [mailto:bert_at_qqmail.nl]
> Sent: donderdag 15 juli 2010 22:05
> To: dev_at_subversion.apache.org; commits_at_subversion.apache.org
> Subject: RE: svn commit: r964487 -
> /subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc/wc_db.c
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: philip_at_apache.org [mailto:philip_at_apache.org]
> > Sent: donderdag 15 juli 2010 18:43
> > To: commits_at_subversion.apache.org
> > Subject: svn commit: r964487 -
> > /subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc/wc_db.c
> >
> > Author: philip
> > Date: Thu Jul 15 16:42:54 2010
> > New Revision: 964487
> >
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=964487&view=rev
> > Log:
> > GCC was warning "suggest parentheses around && within ||".
> >
> > * subversion/libsvn_wc/wc_db.c
> > (svn_wc__db_wclock_obtain): Don't check for empty path as it will
> > be an ancestor.
> >
> > Modified:
> > subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc/wc_db.c
> >
> > Modified: subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc/wc_db.c
> > URL:
> >
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc/wc_d
> > b.c?rev=964487&r1=964486&r2=964487&view=diff
> >
> =======================================================================
> > =======
> > --- subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc/wc_db.c (original)
> > +++ subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc/wc_db.c Thu Jul 15 16:42:54
> > 2010
> > @@ -7814,10 +7814,9 @@ svn_wc__db_wclock_obtain(svn_wc__db_t *d
> > svn_wc__db_wclock_t lock = APR_ARRAY_IDX(wcroot-
> > >owned_locks,
> > i,
> > svn_wc__db_wclock_t);
> >
> > - if ((*lock.relpath == '\0'
> > - || svn_relpath_is_ancestor(lock.relpath,
> > baton.local_relpath)
> > + if (svn_relpath_is_ancestor(lock.relpath,
> > baton.local_relpath)
> > && (lock.levels == -1
> > - || (lock.levels + relpath_op_depth(lock.relpath))
> >=
> > depth)))
> > + || (lock.levels + relpath_op_depth(lock.relpath))
> >=
> > depth))
>
> I'm not sure if this doesn’t change the behavior. (Or: is "" the
> ancestor of "A" when using svn_relpath_is_ancestor()?)
>
> If it isn't this breaks the locks on the working copy root.
Ok, just confirmed that this is safe. (I think there are a few other cases where I used this style to check, introduced in the same commit).
Bert
Received on 2010-07-15 22:12:56 CEST