Michael Haggerty <mhag...@alum.mit.edu> writes:
> So `ref_transaction_update()` *does* need to set or clear the `HAVE_NEW`
> and `HAVE_OLD` bits as I sketched, to impedance-match between the two
> conventions.
OK, so ignoring HAVE_NEW/HAVE_OLD bits that the callers of
ref_transaction_update() may set in flags, and having
ref_transaction_update() compute these bits based on new/old_sha1
pointers from scratch, would be the right thing to do.
IOW
flags &= ~(REF_HAVE_NEW|REF_HAVE_OLD);
if (new_sha1)
flags |= REF_HAVE_NEW;
if (old_sha1)
flags |= REF_HAVE_OLD;
and your earlier "Does the warning go away if you change the line
to" does essentially the same thing.
> It's a shame how much time we've wasted discussing this. Maybe the code
> is trying to be too clever/efficient and needs a rethink.
It might be the case, but I do not know what to blame is "the two
conventions", an over-eager compiler, or a confused commenter on the
thread (that's me), though ;-).
