From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.2 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,URIBL_SBL,URIBL_SBL_A shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0DA31F461 for ; Sat, 13 Jul 2019 12:18:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727538AbfGMMSW (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Jul 2019 08:18:22 -0400 Received: from bsmtp7.bon.at ([213.33.87.19]:51515 "EHLO bsmtp7.bon.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726474AbfGMMSW (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Jul 2019 08:18:22 -0400 Received: from dx.site (unknown [93.83.142.38]) by bsmtp7.bon.at (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 45m82g3hzvz5tlF; Sat, 13 Jul 2019 14:18:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by dx.site (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A9241D1E; Sat, 13 Jul 2019 14:18:19 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: [PATCH] range-diff: fix some 'hdr-check' and sparse warnings From: Johannes Sixt To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Ramsay Jones , Thomas Gummerer , GIT Mailing-list Newsgroups: gmane.comp.version-control.git References: <41a60e60-d2c0-7d54-5456-e44d106548a4@kdbg.org> Message-ID: Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2019 14:18:18 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Am 13.07.19 um 12:44 schrieb Johannes Sixt: > Am 12.07.19 um 18:44 schrieb Junio C Hamano: >> Johannes Sixt writes: >> >>> Am 12.07.19 um 00:03 schrieb Ramsay Jones: >>>> diff --git a/range-diff.c b/range-diff.c >>>> index ba1e9a4265..0f24a4ad12 100644 >>>> --- a/range-diff.c >>>> +++ b/range-diff.c >>>> @@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ static int read_patches(const char *range, struct string_list *list) >>>> } >>>> >>>> if (starts_with(line, "diff --git")) { >>>> - struct patch patch = { 0 }; >>>> + struct patch patch = { NULL }; >>> >>> There is nothing wrong with 0 here. IMHO, zero-initialization should >>> *always* be written as = { 0 } and nothing else. Changing 0 to NULL to >>> pacify sparse encourages a wrong style. >> >> Hmm, care to elaborate a bit? Certainly, we have a clear preference >> between these two: >> >> struct patch patch; >> patch.new_name = 0; >> patch.new_name = NULL; >> >> where the "char *new_name" field is the first one in the structure. >> We always try to write the latter, even though we know they ought to >> be equivalent to the language lawyers. > > I'm not questioning this case; the latter form is clearly preferable. > > Using only = { 0 } for zero-initialization makes the code immune to > rearrangements of the struct members. That is not the case with = { NULL > } because it requires that the first member is a pointer; if > rearrangement makes the first member a non-pointer, the initializations > must be adjusted. > > On the other hand, I'm not arguing that > > struct string_list dup_it = { NULL, 0, 0, 1, NULL }; > > should be written as > > struct string_list dup_it = { 0, 0, 0, 1, 0 }; > > I'm only complaining about the single-initializer = { 0 } "please Of course, I'm not "complaining about" it; I'm "arguing for" it... > initialize this whole struct with zero values" form. > >> Is the reason why you say 0 is fine here because we consider >> >> struct patch patch, *dpatch; >> memset(&patch, 0, sizeof(patch)); >> dpatch = xcalloc(1, sizeof(patch)); >> >> are perfectly good way to trivially iniitialize an instance of the >> struct? > > Absolutely not. Both forms are evildoing as far as struct initialization > is concerned because they ignore the types of the members. The memset > form should always be replaced by = { 0 }. The correct replacement for > the xcalloc form would be > > struct patch zero = { 0 }; > struct patch *dpatch = xmalloc(sizeof(*dpatch)); > *dpatch = zero; > > but I do understand that this transformation is unacceptably verbose. > >> Do we want to talk to sparse folks about this? > > I've no idea which camp they are in. How would they respond to an > exceptional case that is also very much a matter of taste? > > -- Hannes >