From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
To: Matthew DeVore <matvore@comcast.net>
Cc: Matthew DeVore <matvore@google.com>,
git@vger.kernel.org, gitster@pobox.com, pclouds@gmail.com,
jonathantanmy@google.com, jeffhost@microsoft.com
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/2] exclude-promisor-objects: declare when option is allowed
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2018 16:15:55 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181203211555.GA8700@sigill.intra.peff.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <80a08b99-14cb-e398-e6c2-2aa94a5fdda3@comcast.net>
On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 11:10:49AM -0800, Matthew DeVore wrote:
> > > + memset(&s_r_opt, 0, sizeof(s_r_opt));
> > > + s_r_opt.allow_exclude_promisor_objects = 1;
> > > + setup_revisions(ac, av, &revs, &s_r_opt);
> >
> > I wonder if a static initializer for setup_revision_opt is worth it. It
> > would remove the need for this memset. Probably not a big deal either
> > way, though.
> I think you mean something like this:
>
> static struct setup_revision_opt s_r_opt = {NULL, NULL, NULL, 0, 1, 0};
>
> This is a bit cryptic (I have to read the struct declaration in order to
> know what is being set to 1) and if the struct ever gets a new field before
> allow_exclude_promisor_objects, this initializer has to be updated.
I agree that's pretty awful. I meant something like this:
struct setup_revision_opt s_r_opt = { NULL };
...
s_r_opt.allow_exclude_promisor_objects = 1;
setup_revisions(...);
It's functionally equivalent to the memset(), but you don't have to
wonder about whether we peek at the uninitialized state in between.
That said, our C99 designated initializer weather-balloons haven't
gotten any complaints yet. So I think you could actually do:
struct setup_revision_opt s_r_opt = {
.allow_exclude_promisor_objects = 1,
};
...
setup_revisions(...);
which is pretty nice.
-Peff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-12-03 21:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-10-23 1:13 [RFC 0/2] explicitly support or not support --exclude-promisor-objects Matthew DeVore
2018-10-23 1:13 ` [RFC 1/2] Documentation/git-log.txt: do not show --exclude-promisor-objects Matthew DeVore
2018-10-23 1:13 ` [RFC 2/2] exclude-promisor-objects: declare when option is allowed Matthew DeVore
2018-10-23 5:08 ` Junio C Hamano
2018-10-23 17:55 ` Matthew DeVore
2018-10-24 1:31 ` Junio C Hamano
2018-11-21 16:40 ` Jeff King
2018-12-01 1:32 ` Matthew DeVore
2018-12-01 19:44 ` Jeff King
2018-12-03 19:10 ` Matthew DeVore
2018-12-03 21:15 ` Jeff King [this message]
2018-12-03 21:54 ` Matthew DeVore
2018-12-04 2:20 ` Junio C Hamano
2018-12-03 19:23 ` [PATCH] revisions.c: put promisor option in specialized struct Matthew DeVore
2018-12-03 21:24 ` Jeff King
2018-12-03 22:01 ` Matthew DeVore
2018-10-23 1:18 ` [RFC 0/2] explicitly support or not support --exclude-promisor-objects Matthew DeVore
2018-10-23 4:48 ` Junio C Hamano
2018-10-23 17:09 ` Matthew DeVore
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20181203211555.GA8700@sigill.intra.peff.net \
--to=peff@peff.net \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=jeffhost@microsoft.com \
--cc=jonathantanmy@google.com \
--cc=matvore@comcast.net \
--cc=matvore@google.com \
--cc=pclouds@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).