Since we're taking entries from active_cache, which is already in sorted
order with same-named entries adjacent, we can skip a lookup. Also, we can
just use append instead of insert (avoiding the need to find where to put
the new item) and still end up with a sorted list.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <new...@gmail.com>
---
Assumed negligible performance change; I didn't even bother measuring it.
But I just happened to be looking around at this code while trying to figure
out some of the performance and figured it was at least speeding it up a
tiny bit.
merge-recursive.c | 14 ++++++++++----
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/merge-recursive.c b/merge-recursive.c
index 6ef1d52f0a..d54466649e 100644
--- a/merge-recursive.c
+++ b/merge-recursive.c
@@ -451,22 +451,28 @@ static struct stage_data *insert_stage_data(const char
*path,
static struct string_list *get_unmerged(void)
{
struct string_list *unmerged = xcalloc(1, sizeof(struct string_list));
+ struct string_list_item *item;
+ const char *last = NULL;
int i;
unmerged->strdup_strings = 1;
for (i = 0; i < active_nr; i++) {
- struct string_list_item *item;
struct stage_data *e;
const struct cache_entry *ce = active_cache[i];
if (!ce_stage(ce))
continue;
- item = string_list_lookup(unmerged, ce->name);
- if (!item) {
- item = string_list_insert(unmerged, ce->name);
+ if (last == NULL || strcmp(last, ce->name)) {
+ /*
+ * active_cache is in sorted order, so we can just call
+ * string_list_append instead of string_list_insert and
+ * still end up with a sorted list.
+ */
+ item = string_list_append(unmerged, ce->name);
item->util = xcalloc(1, sizeof(struct stage_data));
}
+ last = ce->name;
e = item->util;
e->stages[ce_stage(ce)].mode = ce->ce_mode;
oidcpy(&e->stages[ce_stage(ce)].oid, &ce->oid);
--
2.15.0.46.g41dca04efb
