Michael Haggerty writes:
> As for removing the third argument of refname_match(): although all
> callers pass it ref_ref_parse_rules, that array is sometimes passed to
> the function via the alias "ref_fetch_rules". So I suppose somebody
> wanted to leave the way open to make these two rule sets
On 01/10/2014 12:01 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Michael Haggerty writes:
>
>> As long as we're being pathologically stingy with mallocs, we might as
>> well do the math right and save 6 (!) bytes.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty
>> ---
>> It is left to the reader to show how another 7 byte
Michael Haggerty writes:
> As long as we're being pathologically stingy with mallocs, we might as
> well do the math right and save 6 (!) bytes.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty
> ---
> It is left to the reader to show how another 7 bytes could be saved
> (11 bytes on a 64-bit architecture!)
As long as we're being pathologically stingy with mallocs, we might as
well do the math right and save 6 (!) bytes.
Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty
---
It is left to the reader to show how another 7 bytes could be saved
(11 bytes on a 64-bit architecture!)
It probably wouldn't kill performance t
4 matches
Mail list logo
