On 2021-04-11 at 11:57:30, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Apr 10 2021, brian m. carlson wrote:
> 
> >  const struct object_id null_oid;
> >  static const struct object_id empty_tree_oid = {
> > -	EMPTY_TREE_SHA1_BIN_LITERAL
> > +	EMPTY_TREE_SHA1_BIN_LITERAL,
> > +	GIT_HASH_SHA1,
> >  };
> >  static const struct object_id empty_blob_oid = {
> > -	EMPTY_BLOB_SHA1_BIN_LITERAL
> > +	EMPTY_BLOB_SHA1_BIN_LITERAL,
> > +	GIT_HASH_SHA1,
> >  };
> >  static const struct object_id empty_tree_oid_sha256 = {
> > -	EMPTY_TREE_SHA256_BIN_LITERAL
> > +	EMPTY_TREE_SHA256_BIN_LITERAL,
> > +	GIT_HASH_SHA256,
> >  };
> >  static const struct object_id empty_blob_oid_sha256 = {
> > -	EMPTY_BLOB_SHA256_BIN_LITERAL
> > +	EMPTY_BLOB_SHA256_BIN_LITERAL,
> > +	GIT_HASH_SHA256,
> >  };
> 
> In this and some other patches we're continuing to add new fields to
> structs without using designated initializers.
> 
> Not a new problem at all, just a note that if you re-roll I for one
> would very much appreciate starting by migrating over to that. It makes
> for much easier reading in subsequent patches in this series, and in
> future ones.

I'm happy to do that.  I thought we were not allowed to use C99 features
because only recent versions of MSVC support modern C.  I was previously
under the impression that MSVC didn't support anything but C89, but they
now support C11 and C17 in their latest release[0], much to my surprise.

If we're willing to require C99 features, then I'm happy to add those.
I'll also send a follow-up series to require C99 support, which I think
is overdue considering the standard is 22 years old.

[0] https://devblogs.microsoft.com/cppblog/c11-and-c17-standard-support-arriving-in-msvc/
-- 
brian m. carlson (he/him or they/them)
Houston, Texas, US