From: Kjetil Barvik <barvik@broadpark.no>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] make the ST_{C,M}TIME_NSEC macros more function like
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 22:59:45 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <86tz5u1m7i.fsf@broadpark.no> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7v4oxu7dyn.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
> Kjetil Barvik <barvik@broadpark.no> 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?
It seems to woork from a small gcc test, but since C has call-by-
value, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_by_value#Call_by_value
says:
[...] in C or Pascal, calling a function with a large structure as
an argument will cause the entire structure to be copied,
potentially causing serious performance degradation, and mutations
to the structure are invisible to the caller. [...]
So in my eyes it make more sense to be consistent and take the address
of all struct like objects (&st in this case) for all arguments to
"function-like" things.
But, since these 2 are macros, which use textual substitution, I guess
things will work correctly either way, and the compiled result will be
the same. But, I still like the more "function friendly" macros.
-- kjetil
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-03-15 22:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-03-15 11:38 [PATCH 0/2] git checkout: one bugfix and one cosmetic change Kjetil Barvik
2009-03-15 11:38 ` [PATCH 1/2] checkout bugfix: use stat.mtime instead of stat.ctime in two places Kjetil Barvik
2009-03-15 11:38 ` [PATCH 2/2] make the ST_{C,M}TIME_NSEC macros more function like Kjetil Barvik
2009-03-15 20:01 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-03-15 21:59 ` Kjetil Barvik [this message]
2009-03-16 7:12 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-03-17 17:38 ` Kjetil Barvik
2009-03-15 18:21 ` [PATCH 0/2] git checkout: one bugfix and one cosmetic change Junio C Hamano
2009-03-15 19:38 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-03-16 16:12 ` Michael J Gruber
2009-03-17 4:56 ` Kris Shannon
2009-03-17 8:43 ` Jeff King
2009-03-17 13:39 ` Michael J Gruber
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=86tz5u1m7i.fsf@broadpark.no \
--to=barvik@broadpark.no \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.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).