stef...@apache.org wrote on Sat, Mar 03, 2012 at 10:53:16 -0000: > Author: stefan2 > Date: Sat Mar 3 10:53:16 2012 > New Revision: 1296596 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1296596&view=rev > Log: > * subversion/libsvn_delta/xdelta.c > (reverse_match_length): actually return MAX_LEN if MAX_LEN chars match. > > Found by: julianfoad > > Modified: > subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_delta/xdelta.c > > Modified: subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_delta/xdelta.c > URL: > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_delta/xdelta.c?rev=1296596&r1=1296595&r2=1296596&view=diff > ============================================================================== > --- subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_delta/xdelta.c (original) > +++ subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_delta/xdelta.c Sat Mar 3 10:53:16 2012 > @@ -260,11 +260,15 @@ reverse_match_length(const char *a, cons > > #endif > > + /* If we find a mismatch at -pos, pos-1 characters matched. > + */ > while (++pos <= max_len) > if (a[0-pos] != b[0-pos]) > - break; > + return pos - 1; > > - return pos-1; > + /* No mismatch found -> at least MAX_LEN machting chars. > + */ > + return max_len;
I may be blind, but isn't the code before this diff and after it equivalent? Both the old and new code return POS-1 when the if() statement is entered, and if the code falls off the end of the while() loop then necessarily POS=1+MAX_LEN, again meaning that the old and new code are equivalent. > } > > > >
