From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] make the ST_{C,M}TIME_NSEC macros more function like Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 13:01:20 -0700 Message-ID: <7v4oxu7dyn.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <0681248ac5c9cedf5f42adeeae89966a89e6d42a.1237115791.git.barvik@broadpark.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Kjetil Barvik X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Mar 15 21:03:11 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LiwXw-00033y-5R for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sun, 15 Mar 2009 21:02:56 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754830AbZCOUB2 (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Mar 2009 16:01:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752088AbZCOUB1 (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Mar 2009 16:01:27 -0400 Received: from a-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:62564 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751656AbZCOUB1 (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Mar 2009 16:01:27 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F8F46130; Sun, 15 Mar 2009 16:01:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [68.225.240.211]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DCAA0612F; Sun, 15 Mar 2009 16:01:21 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <0681248ac5c9cedf5f42adeeae89966a89e6d42a.1237115791.git.barvik@broadpark.no> (Kjetil Barvik's message of "Sun, 15 Mar 2009 12:38:56 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 10261C52-119C-11DE-9261-C5D912508E2D-77302942!a-sasl-quonix.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Kjetil Barvik writes: > Make the macros take a pointer to a 'struct stat'. This is so that it > should be easier to understand what is going on, and that the macros > can later be implemented as a inline function if we want to. > > Impact: cosmetic change Hmm,... I have to wonder if this cosmetic change is an improvement, though. I do not have a strong feeling either way, but I think it makes it clear that these two macros are not lvalues if you do not pass a pointer but instead pass a structure. An inline function can still take a structure passed by value as an argument anyway, no?