git.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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

  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).