On 04/06/2017 02:26 PM, René Scharfe wrote:
> Am 06.04.2017 um 11:52 schrieb Martin Liška:
>> I'm sending (v2), where I updated commit message and wrapped 2 problematic
>> places to newly introduced macros that do the check. Follow-up patch can
>> change usages of memcpy and memove.
> 
>> diff --git a/apply.c b/apply.c
>> index e6dbab26a..eacca29fa 100644
>> --- a/apply.c
>> +++ b/apply.c
>> @@ -2802,9 +2802,9 @@ static void update_image(struct apply_state *state,
>>  			img->line + applied_pos + preimage_limit,
>>  			(img->nr - (applied_pos + preimage_limit)) *
>>  			sizeof(*img->line));
>> -	memcpy(img->line + applied_pos,
>> -	       postimage->line,
>> -	       postimage->nr * sizeof(*img->line));
>> +	MEMCPY(img->line + applied_pos,
>> +		postimage->line,
>> +		postimage->nr * sizeof(*img->line));
> 
> Using the existing macro COPY_ARRAY would yield a nicer result:

Yes, it's nicer. I'm sending tested version 3.

Martin

> 
> 	COPY_ARRAY(img->line + applied_pos, postimage->line, postimage->nr);
> 
>>  	if (!state->allow_overlap)
>>  		for (i = 0; i < postimage->nr; i++)
>>  			img->line[applied_pos + i].flag |= LINE_PATCHED;
>> diff --git a/builtin/ls-files.c b/builtin/ls-files.c
>> index d449e46db..7caeeb6a6 100644
>> --- a/builtin/ls-files.c
>> +++ b/builtin/ls-files.c
>> @@ -391,7 +391,7 @@ static void prune_cache(const char *prefix, size_t prefixlen)
>>  		}
>>  		last = next;
>>  	}
>> -	memmove(active_cache, active_cache + pos,
>> +	MEMMOVE(active_cache, active_cache + pos,
>>  		(last - pos) * sizeof(struct cache_entry *));
>>  	active_nr = last - pos;
>>  }
> 
> Perhaps we should add MOVE_ARRAY to complement COPY_ARRAY.
> 
> René
>