On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote: > Stefan Beller <sbel...@google.com> writes: > >> Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbel...@google.com> >> --- >> cache.h | 15 +++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/cache.h b/cache.h >> index 1b67f078dd..270a0d0ea7 100644 >> --- a/cache.h >> +++ b/cache.h >> @@ -575,7 +575,22 @@ extern int verify_path(const char *path); >> extern int index_dir_exists(struct index_state *istate, const char *name, >> int namelen); >> extern void adjust_dirname_case(struct index_state *istate, char *name); >> extern struct cache_entry *index_file_exists(struct index_state *istate, >> const char *name, int namelen, int igncase); >> + >> +/* >> + * Searches for an entry defined by name and namelen in the given index. >> + * If the return value is positive (including 0) it is the position of an >> + * exact match. If the return value is negative, the negated value minus 1 >> is the >> + * position where the entry would be inserted. >> + * Example: In the current index we have the files b,d,e: >> + * index_name_pos(&index, "a", 1) -> -1 >> + * index_name_pos(&index, "b", 1) -> 0 >> + * index_name_pos(&index, "c", 1) -> -2 >> + * index_name_pos(&index, "d", 1) -> 1 >> + * index_name_pos(&index, "e", 1) -> 2 > > The above may not be wrong per-se, but it misses one important case. > A conflicted entry in the index with the same name is considered to > sort after the name this asks. If there are stage #1 and stage #3 > entries for path "g" in addition to the above, i.e. > > [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] > b#0 d#0 e#0 g#1 g#3 > > then > > index_name_pos(&index, "g", 1) -> -3 - 1 = -4 > index_name_pos(&index, "h", 1) -> -5 - 1 = -6 > >> + * index_name_pos(&index, "f", 1) -> -3 >> + */
Oh, I see. With this property in mind, we know that when using index_name_pos for sorting, the stages for a given path are ordered correctly (in ascending order, 0 comes before 1, which comes before 3). > > Shouldn't this be -4? We originally have [0], [1], and [2] in the > index, and "f" needs to go to [3], so -3 - 1 = -4, no? yes, it should be -4.
