1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/git/git.git synced 2024-10-31 14:27:54 +01:00
git/list-objects.c

218 lines
5.4 KiB
C
Raw Normal View History

#include "cache.h"
#include "tag.h"
#include "commit.h"
#include "tree.h"
#include "blob.h"
#include "diff.h"
#include "tree-walk.h"
#include "revision.h"
#include "list-objects.h"
static void process_blob(struct rev_info *revs,
struct blob *blob,
process_{tree,blob}: show objects without buffering Here's a less trivial thing, and slightly more dubious one. I was looking at that "struct object_array objects", and wondering why we do that. I have honestly totally forgotten. Why not just call the "show()" function as we encounter the objects? Rather than add the objects to the object_array, and then at the very end going through the array and doing a 'show' on all, just do things more incrementally. Now, there are possible downsides to this: - the "buffer using object_array" _can_ in theory result in at least better I-cache usage (two tight loops rather than one more spread out one). I don't think this is a real issue, but in theory.. - this _does_ change the order of the objects printed. Instead of doing a "process_tree(revs, commit->tree, &objects, NULL, "");" in the loop over the commits (which puts all the root trees _first_ in the object list, this patch just adds them to the list of pending objects, and then we'll traverse them in that order (and thus show each root tree object together with the objects we discover under it) I _think_ the new ordering actually makes more sense, but the object ordering is actually a subtle thing when it comes to packing efficiency, so any change in order is going to have implications for packing. Good or bad, I dunno. - There may be some reason why we did it that odd way with the object array, that I have simply forgotten. Anyway, now that we don't buffer up the objects before showing them that may actually result in lower memory usage during that whole traverse_commit_list() phase. This is seriously not very deeply tested. It makes sense to me, it seems to pass all the tests, it looks ok, but... Does anybody remember why we did that "object_array" thing? It used to be an "object_list" a long long time ago, but got changed into the array due to better memory usage patterns (those linked lists of obejcts are horrible from a memory allocation standpoint). But I wonder why we didn't do this back then. Maybe there's a reason for it. Or maybe there _used_ to be a reason, and no longer is. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2009-04-11 02:27:58 +02:00
show_object_fn show,
struct name_path *path,
const char *name,
void *cb_data)
{
struct object *obj = &blob->object;
if (!revs->blob_objects)
return;
if (!obj)
die("bad blob object");
if (obj->flags & (UNINTERESTING | SEEN))
return;
obj->flags |= SEEN;
show(obj, path, name, cb_data);
}
/*
* Processing a gitlink entry currently does nothing, since
* we do not recurse into the subproject.
*
* We *could* eventually add a flag that actually does that,
* which would involve:
* - is the subproject actually checked out?
* - if so, see if the subproject has already been added
* to the alternates list, and add it if not.
* - process the commit (or tag) the gitlink points to
* recursively.
*
* However, it's unclear whether there is really ever any
* reason to see superprojects and subprojects as such a
* "unified" object pool (potentially resulting in a totally
* humongous pack - avoiding which was the whole point of
* having gitlinks in the first place!).
*
* So for now, there is just a note that we *could* follow
* the link, and how to do it. Whether it necessarily makes
* any sense what-so-ever to ever do that is another issue.
*/
static void process_gitlink(struct rev_info *revs,
const unsigned char *sha1,
process_{tree,blob}: show objects without buffering Here's a less trivial thing, and slightly more dubious one. I was looking at that "struct object_array objects", and wondering why we do that. I have honestly totally forgotten. Why not just call the "show()" function as we encounter the objects? Rather than add the objects to the object_array, and then at the very end going through the array and doing a 'show' on all, just do things more incrementally. Now, there are possible downsides to this: - the "buffer using object_array" _can_ in theory result in at least better I-cache usage (two tight loops rather than one more spread out one). I don't think this is a real issue, but in theory.. - this _does_ change the order of the objects printed. Instead of doing a "process_tree(revs, commit->tree, &objects, NULL, "");" in the loop over the commits (which puts all the root trees _first_ in the object list, this patch just adds them to the list of pending objects, and then we'll traverse them in that order (and thus show each root tree object together with the objects we discover under it) I _think_ the new ordering actually makes more sense, but the object ordering is actually a subtle thing when it comes to packing efficiency, so any change in order is going to have implications for packing. Good or bad, I dunno. - There may be some reason why we did it that odd way with the object array, that I have simply forgotten. Anyway, now that we don't buffer up the objects before showing them that may actually result in lower memory usage during that whole traverse_commit_list() phase. This is seriously not very deeply tested. It makes sense to me, it seems to pass all the tests, it looks ok, but... Does anybody remember why we did that "object_array" thing? It used to be an "object_list" a long long time ago, but got changed into the array due to better memory usage patterns (those linked lists of obejcts are horrible from a memory allocation standpoint). But I wonder why we didn't do this back then. Maybe there's a reason for it. Or maybe there _used_ to be a reason, and no longer is. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2009-04-11 02:27:58 +02:00
show_object_fn show,
struct name_path *path,
const char *name,
void *cb_data)
{
/* Nothing to do */
}
static void process_tree(struct rev_info *revs,
struct tree *tree,
process_{tree,blob}: show objects without buffering Here's a less trivial thing, and slightly more dubious one. I was looking at that "struct object_array objects", and wondering why we do that. I have honestly totally forgotten. Why not just call the "show()" function as we encounter the objects? Rather than add the objects to the object_array, and then at the very end going through the array and doing a 'show' on all, just do things more incrementally. Now, there are possible downsides to this: - the "buffer using object_array" _can_ in theory result in at least better I-cache usage (two tight loops rather than one more spread out one). I don't think this is a real issue, but in theory.. - this _does_ change the order of the objects printed. Instead of doing a "process_tree(revs, commit->tree, &objects, NULL, "");" in the loop over the commits (which puts all the root trees _first_ in the object list, this patch just adds them to the list of pending objects, and then we'll traverse them in that order (and thus show each root tree object together with the objects we discover under it) I _think_ the new ordering actually makes more sense, but the object ordering is actually a subtle thing when it comes to packing efficiency, so any change in order is going to have implications for packing. Good or bad, I dunno. - There may be some reason why we did it that odd way with the object array, that I have simply forgotten. Anyway, now that we don't buffer up the objects before showing them that may actually result in lower memory usage during that whole traverse_commit_list() phase. This is seriously not very deeply tested. It makes sense to me, it seems to pass all the tests, it looks ok, but... Does anybody remember why we did that "object_array" thing? It used to be an "object_list" a long long time ago, but got changed into the array due to better memory usage patterns (those linked lists of obejcts are horrible from a memory allocation standpoint). But I wonder why we didn't do this back then. Maybe there's a reason for it. Or maybe there _used_ to be a reason, and no longer is. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2009-04-11 02:27:58 +02:00
show_object_fn show,
struct name_path *path,
struct strbuf *base,
const char *name,
void *cb_data)
{
struct object *obj = &tree->object;
struct tree_desc desc;
struct name_entry entry;
struct name_path me;
int match = revs->diffopt.pathspec.nr == 0 ? 2 : 0;
int baselen = base->len;
if (!revs->tree_objects)
return;
if (!obj)
die("bad tree object");
if (obj->flags & (UNINTERESTING | SEEN))
return;
if (parse_tree(tree) < 0)
die("bad tree object %s", sha1_to_hex(obj->sha1));
obj->flags |= SEEN;
show(obj, path, name, cb_data);
me.up = path;
me.elem = name;
me.elem_len = strlen(name);
if (!match) {
strbuf_addstr(base, name);
if (base->len)
strbuf_addch(base, '/');
}
init_tree_desc(&desc, tree->buffer, tree->size);
while (tree_entry(&desc, &entry)) {
if (match != 2) {
match = tree_entry_interesting(&entry, base, 0,
&revs->diffopt.pathspec);
if (match < 0)
break;
if (match == 0)
continue;
}
if (S_ISDIR(entry.mode))
process_tree(revs,
lookup_tree(entry.sha1),
show, &me, base, entry.path,
cb_data);
else if (S_ISGITLINK(entry.mode))
process_gitlink(revs, entry.sha1,
show, &me, entry.path,
cb_data);
else
process_blob(revs,
lookup_blob(entry.sha1),
show, &me, entry.path,
cb_data);
}
strbuf_setlen(base, baselen);
free(tree->buffer);
tree->buffer = NULL;
}
static void mark_edge_parents_uninteresting(struct commit *commit,
struct rev_info *revs,
show_edge_fn show_edge)
{
struct commit_list *parents;
for (parents = commit->parents; parents; parents = parents->next) {
struct commit *parent = parents->item;
if (!(parent->object.flags & UNINTERESTING))
continue;
mark_tree_uninteresting(parent->tree);
if (revs->edge_hint && !(parent->object.flags & SHOWN)) {
parent->object.flags |= SHOWN;
show_edge(parent);
}
}
}
void mark_edges_uninteresting(struct commit_list *list,
struct rev_info *revs,
show_edge_fn show_edge)
{
for ( ; list; list = list->next) {
struct commit *commit = list->item;
if (commit->object.flags & UNINTERESTING) {
mark_tree_uninteresting(commit->tree);
continue;
}
mark_edge_parents_uninteresting(commit, revs, show_edge);
}
}
process_{tree,blob}: show objects without buffering Here's a less trivial thing, and slightly more dubious one. I was looking at that "struct object_array objects", and wondering why we do that. I have honestly totally forgotten. Why not just call the "show()" function as we encounter the objects? Rather than add the objects to the object_array, and then at the very end going through the array and doing a 'show' on all, just do things more incrementally. Now, there are possible downsides to this: - the "buffer using object_array" _can_ in theory result in at least better I-cache usage (two tight loops rather than one more spread out one). I don't think this is a real issue, but in theory.. - this _does_ change the order of the objects printed. Instead of doing a "process_tree(revs, commit->tree, &objects, NULL, "");" in the loop over the commits (which puts all the root trees _first_ in the object list, this patch just adds them to the list of pending objects, and then we'll traverse them in that order (and thus show each root tree object together with the objects we discover under it) I _think_ the new ordering actually makes more sense, but the object ordering is actually a subtle thing when it comes to packing efficiency, so any change in order is going to have implications for packing. Good or bad, I dunno. - There may be some reason why we did it that odd way with the object array, that I have simply forgotten. Anyway, now that we don't buffer up the objects before showing them that may actually result in lower memory usage during that whole traverse_commit_list() phase. This is seriously not very deeply tested. It makes sense to me, it seems to pass all the tests, it looks ok, but... Does anybody remember why we did that "object_array" thing? It used to be an "object_list" a long long time ago, but got changed into the array due to better memory usage patterns (those linked lists of obejcts are horrible from a memory allocation standpoint). But I wonder why we didn't do this back then. Maybe there's a reason for it. Or maybe there _used_ to be a reason, and no longer is. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2009-04-11 02:27:58 +02:00
static void add_pending_tree(struct rev_info *revs, struct tree *tree)
{
add_pending_object(revs, &tree->object, "");
}
void traverse_commit_list(struct rev_info *revs,
show_commit_fn show_commit,
show_object_fn show_object,
void *data)
{
int i;
struct commit *commit;
struct strbuf base;
strbuf_init(&base, PATH_MAX);
while ((commit = get_revision(revs)) != NULL) {
/*
* an uninteresting boundary commit may not have its tree
* parsed yet, but we are not going to show them anyway
*/
if (commit->tree)
add_pending_tree(revs, commit->tree);
show_commit(commit, data);
}
for (i = 0; i < revs->pending.nr; i++) {
struct object_array_entry *pending = revs->pending.objects + i;
struct object *obj = pending->item;
const char *name = pending->name;
if (obj->flags & (UNINTERESTING | SEEN))
continue;
if (obj->type == OBJ_TAG) {
obj->flags |= SEEN;
show_object(obj, NULL, name, data);
continue;
}
if (obj->type == OBJ_TREE) {
process_{tree,blob}: show objects without buffering Here's a less trivial thing, and slightly more dubious one. I was looking at that "struct object_array objects", and wondering why we do that. I have honestly totally forgotten. Why not just call the "show()" function as we encounter the objects? Rather than add the objects to the object_array, and then at the very end going through the array and doing a 'show' on all, just do things more incrementally. Now, there are possible downsides to this: - the "buffer using object_array" _can_ in theory result in at least better I-cache usage (two tight loops rather than one more spread out one). I don't think this is a real issue, but in theory.. - this _does_ change the order of the objects printed. Instead of doing a "process_tree(revs, commit->tree, &objects, NULL, "");" in the loop over the commits (which puts all the root trees _first_ in the object list, this patch just adds them to the list of pending objects, and then we'll traverse them in that order (and thus show each root tree object together with the objects we discover under it) I _think_ the new ordering actually makes more sense, but the object ordering is actually a subtle thing when it comes to packing efficiency, so any change in order is going to have implications for packing. Good or bad, I dunno. - There may be some reason why we did it that odd way with the object array, that I have simply forgotten. Anyway, now that we don't buffer up the objects before showing them that may actually result in lower memory usage during that whole traverse_commit_list() phase. This is seriously not very deeply tested. It makes sense to me, it seems to pass all the tests, it looks ok, but... Does anybody remember why we did that "object_array" thing? It used to be an "object_list" a long long time ago, but got changed into the array due to better memory usage patterns (those linked lists of obejcts are horrible from a memory allocation standpoint). But I wonder why we didn't do this back then. Maybe there's a reason for it. Or maybe there _used_ to be a reason, and no longer is. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2009-04-11 02:27:58 +02:00
process_tree(revs, (struct tree *)obj, show_object,
NULL, &base, name, data);
continue;
}
if (obj->type == OBJ_BLOB) {
process_{tree,blob}: show objects without buffering Here's a less trivial thing, and slightly more dubious one. I was looking at that "struct object_array objects", and wondering why we do that. I have honestly totally forgotten. Why not just call the "show()" function as we encounter the objects? Rather than add the objects to the object_array, and then at the very end going through the array and doing a 'show' on all, just do things more incrementally. Now, there are possible downsides to this: - the "buffer using object_array" _can_ in theory result in at least better I-cache usage (two tight loops rather than one more spread out one). I don't think this is a real issue, but in theory.. - this _does_ change the order of the objects printed. Instead of doing a "process_tree(revs, commit->tree, &objects, NULL, "");" in the loop over the commits (which puts all the root trees _first_ in the object list, this patch just adds them to the list of pending objects, and then we'll traverse them in that order (and thus show each root tree object together with the objects we discover under it) I _think_ the new ordering actually makes more sense, but the object ordering is actually a subtle thing when it comes to packing efficiency, so any change in order is going to have implications for packing. Good or bad, I dunno. - There may be some reason why we did it that odd way with the object array, that I have simply forgotten. Anyway, now that we don't buffer up the objects before showing them that may actually result in lower memory usage during that whole traverse_commit_list() phase. This is seriously not very deeply tested. It makes sense to me, it seems to pass all the tests, it looks ok, but... Does anybody remember why we did that "object_array" thing? It used to be an "object_list" a long long time ago, but got changed into the array due to better memory usage patterns (those linked lists of obejcts are horrible from a memory allocation standpoint). But I wonder why we didn't do this back then. Maybe there's a reason for it. Or maybe there _used_ to be a reason, and no longer is. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2009-04-11 02:27:58 +02:00
process_blob(revs, (struct blob *)obj, show_object,
NULL, name, data);
continue;
}
die("unknown pending object %s (%s)",
sha1_to_hex(obj->sha1), name);
}
if (revs->pending.nr) {
free(revs->pending.objects);
revs->pending.nr = 0;
revs->pending.alloc = 0;
revs->pending.objects = NULL;
}
strbuf_release(&base);
}