| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
We were returning the _address of_ the stored item (or NULL)
instead of the item itself. While this sort of indirection
is useful for insertion (since you can lookup and then
modify), it is unnecessary for read-only lookup. Since the
hash code splits these functions between the internal
lookup_hash_entry function and the public lookup_hash
function, it makes sense for the latter to provide what
users of the library expect.
The result of this was that the index caching returned bogus
results on lookup. We unfortunately didn't catch this
because we were returning a "struct cache_entry **" as a
"void *", and accidentally assigning it to a "struct
cache_entry *".
As it happens, this actually _worked_ most of the time,
because the entries were defined as:
struct cache_entry {
struct cache_entry *next;
...
};
meaning that interpreting a "struct cache_entry **" as a
"struct cache_entry *" would yield an entry where all fields
were totally bogus _except_ for the next pointer, which
pointed to the actual cache entry. When walking the list, we
would look at the bogus "name" field, which was unlikely to
match our lookup, and then proceed to the "real" entry.
The reading of bogus data was silently ignored most of the
time, but could cause a segfault for some data (which seems
to be more common on OS X).
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
|
This implements a smarter rename detector for exact renames, which
rather than doing a pairwise comparison (time O(m*n)) will just hash the
files into a hash-table (size O(n+m)), and only do pairwise comparisons
to renames that have the same hash (time O(n+m) except for unrealistic
hash collissions, which we just cull aggressively).
Admittedly the exact rename case is not nearly as interesting as the
generic case, but it's an important case none-the-less. A similar general
approach should work for the generic case too, but even then you do need
to handle the exact renames/copies separately (to avoid the inevitable
added cost factor that comes from the _size_ of the file), so this is
worth doing.
In the expectation that we will indeed do the same hashing trick for the
general rename case, this code uses a generic hash-table implementation
that can be used for other things too. In fact, we might be able to
consolidate some of our existing hash tables with the new generic code
in hash.[ch].
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
