On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 11:33:14AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King writes:
>
> > One thing that gave me pause on ripping out more code is that I have
> > some bitmap-related patches on my send-to-upstream list, and I wasn't
> > sure if they used any of this code. But I checked against
Jeff King writes:
> One thing that gave me pause on ripping out more code is that I have
> some bitmap-related patches on my send-to-upstream list, and I wasn't
> sure if they used any of this code. But I checked against your patches,
> and no, this can all go (which makes sense -- my patches
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 10:15:50AM -0400, Derrick Stolee wrote:
> > Hmm, if you are in the mood to drop ewah dead code, how about:
> >
> >ewah/bitmap.o - bitmap_clear
> >ewah/bitmap.o - bitmap_each_bit
> >ewah/ewah_bitmap.o - ewah_and
> >ewah/ewah_bitmap.o -
On 6/15/2018 9:56 AM, Ramsay Jones wrote:
On 15/06/18 04:32, Jeff King wrote:
We don't call this function, and never have. The on-disk
bitmap format uses network-byte-order integers, meaning that
we cannot use the native-byte-order format written here.
Let's drop it in the name of simplicity.
On 15/06/18 14:56, Ramsay Jones wrote:
>
>
> On 15/06/18 04:32, Jeff King wrote:
>> We don't call this function, and never have. The on-disk
>> bitmap format uses network-byte-order integers, meaning that
>> we cannot use the native-byte-order format written here.
>>
>> Let's drop it in the
On 15/06/18 04:32, Jeff King wrote:
> We don't call this function, and never have. The on-disk
> bitmap format uses network-byte-order integers, meaning that
> we cannot use the native-byte-order format written here.
>
> Let's drop it in the name of simplicity.
Hmm, if you are in the mood to
We don't call this function, and never have. The on-disk
bitmap format uses network-byte-order integers, meaning that
we cannot use the native-byte-order format written here.
Let's drop it in the name of simplicity.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King
---
ewah/ewah_io.c | 26 --
7 matches
Mail list logo
