Hi Stefan. Please edit the log message for this rev.
(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 ----- Original Message ----- > From: Stefan Fuhrmann <stefanfuhrm...@alice-dsl.de> > To: > Cc: dev@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: >> stef...@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. >
