On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 02:32:04PM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > Yeah I am not sure if I like this comparison at the beginning of the
> > function:
> >
> > static int next_byte(const char **cp, const char **endp,
> > const struct diff_options *diffopt)
> > {
> > int retval;
> >
> > if (*cp > *endp)
> > return -1;
> >
> > but it says endp _is_ part of valid input, contrary to my intuition.
> >
> > And your change to the initialization of ae/be in moved_entry_cmp()
> > makes it consistent with it, I think.
> >
> > But doesn't it mean ae computation in get_string_hash() also needs a
> > massaging?
>
> Ah, forget the last two lines. You do do the massaging in your
> patch.
I was just replying so. :)
> My preference actually is to fix next_byte to follow the usual "when
> we end, it points one past the valid region", though.
Yeah, I think that is my preference, too.
-Peff
