On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Thomas Gummerer <[email protected]> wrote:
> Add an api for access to the index file. Currently there is only a very
> basic api for accessing the index file, which only allows a full read of
> the index, and lets the users of the data filter it. The new index api
> gives the users the possibility to use only part of the index and
> provides functions for iterating over and accessing cache entries.
>
> This simplifies future improvements to the in-memory format, as changes
> will be concentrated on one file, instead of the whole git source code.
>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gummerer <[email protected]>
> ---
> cache.h | 57 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> read-cache-v2.c | 96 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> read-cache.c | 108
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> read-cache.h | 12 ++++++-
> 4 files changed, 263 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/cache.h b/cache.h
> index 5082b34..d38dfbd 100644
> --- a/cache.h
> +++ b/cache.h
> @@ -127,7 +127,8 @@ struct cache_entry {
> unsigned int ce_flags;
> unsigned int ce_namelen;
> unsigned char sha1[20];
> - struct cache_entry *next;
> + struct cache_entry *next; /* used by name_hash */
> + struct cache_entry *next_ce; /* used to keep a list of cache entries
> */
> char name[FLEX_ARRAY]; /* more */
> };
>From what I read, doing
ce = start;
while (ce) { do(something); ce = next_cache_entry(ce); }
is the same as
i = start_index;
while (i < active_nr) { ce = active_cache[i]; do(something); i++; }
What's the advantage of using the former over the latter? Do you plan
to eliminate the latter loop (by hiding "struct cache_entry **cache;"
from public index_state structure?
--
Duy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
