Re: [PATCH] repo: zero-initialize configuration values

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> writes:

> In any case, the patch is obviously correct and is a good improvement in
> my opinion. So this looks good to me, thanks.

It however does not look good to me.  I would prefer to see

	struct foo foo = {0};

if everything is zero initialized, or if there are some members
initialized to specific values, C99 designated initializers to be
used:

	struct foo foo = {
		/* Comment on this stuff */
		.object_creation_mode = OBJECT_CREATION_MODE,

                /* Comment on this other stuff */
		.branch_track = BRANCH_TRACK_REMOTE,
	};

Now this is overwriting the passed in structure members, so how we
write the initialization is not the whole story.

Since we have avoided assuming the universal availability of the
more recent "compound literals" syntax, which is:

	*cfg = (struct foo) {
		... an initialization with designated initializers ...
	};

we seem to (ab)use struct assignment, e.g.,

	static struct foo foo_template = {
		... an initialization with designated initializers ...
	};

	*cfg = foo_template;

in a few places as a fallback in the existing code (DI is C99,
struct assignment is C89, so it has been a safer assumption than
assuming compound literals).

But I do recall we made this update to our CodingGuidelines document.

   . since late 2024 with v2.48.0-rc0~20, we have been using compound
     literals, e.g., (struct foo){ .member = value };

So perhaps it is time to switch this to assign a compound literal?