On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 01:45:20AM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 04:25:49AM +0000, brian m. carlson wrote:
> > diff --git a/match-trees.c b/match-trees.c
> > index feca48a5fd..b1fbd022d1 100644
> > --- a/match-trees.c
> > +++ b/match-trees.c
> > @@ -224,7 +224,7 @@ static int splice_tree(const struct object_id *oid1,
> > const char *prefix,
> > } else {
> > rewrite_with = oid2;
> > }
> > - oidcpy(rewrite_here, rewrite_with);
> > + hashcpy(rewrite_here->hash, rewrite_with->hash);
>
> Hrm. Our coccinelle patches will want to convert this back to oidcpy(),
> though I see you drop them in the final patch.
>
> However, I wonder if it points to another mismatch. Isn't the point that
> we _don't_ actually have "struct object_id"s here? I.e., rewrite_here
> and rewrite_with should actually be "const unsigned char *" that we
> happen to know are the_hash_algo->raw_sz?Correct. > I think the only reason they are "struct object_id" is because that's > what tree_entry_extract() returns. Should we be providing another > function to allow more byte-oriented access? The reason is we recursively call splice_tree, passing rewrite_here as the first argument. That argument is then used for read_object_file, which requires a struct object_id * (because it is, logically, an object ID). I *think* we could fix this by copying an unsigned char *rewrite_here into a temporary struct object_id before we recurse, but it's not obvious to me if that's safe to do. -- brian m. carlson: Houston, Texas, US OpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
