Stefan Beller <stefanbel...@gmail.com> writes:
> In line 1763 of unpack-tree.c we have a condition on the current tree
> if (current) {
> ...
> Within this block of code we can assume current to be non NULL, hence
> the code after the statement in line 1796:
> if (current)
> return ...
>
> cannot be reached.
>
> The proposed patch here changes the order of the current tree and the
> newtree part. I'm not sure if that's the right way to handle it.
If the existing code decides to reject the merge and falls into that
code path, src[0] aka current is not NULL at that point as you
noticed, and we would call reject_merge(current, o); we would keep
doing so after this "remove dead code" patch is applied.
If you remove the dead code, which are the inner check for current,
reject_merge() call with newtree and the final fallback of returning
-1, then it would be a faithful "remove dead code without changing
anything else" update.
Having said that, I think current/newtree/oldtree are used in the
call to reject_merge() *only* for their path aka ce->name, and they
all point at the same name (there is no rename funkies here); hence
"all other failures" code path should just rely on current always
being present and become something like this instead:
/* 20 or 21 */
...
} else if (o->gently) {
return -1;
} else {
return reject_merge(current, o);
}
Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
