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

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

Joie Joie <soniqjjj@gmail.com> writes:

> Thanks, Junio.
>
> I hadn't considered using a compound literal here. I was following the
> existing initialization approach, but your suggestion makes sense,
> especially given the update to the CodingGuidelines.
>
> I'll look into changing the initialization to use a compound literal
> while preserving the existing defaults and behavior.

Sounds good, but do not top post ;-)

>
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2026 at 8:36 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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?