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=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI 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 1439420248 for ; Sun, 3 Mar 2019 01:21:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727043AbfCCBVu (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Mar 2019 20:21:50 -0500 Received: from mail-wr1-f67.google.com ([209.85.221.67]:45253 "EHLO mail-wr1-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726023AbfCCBVt (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Mar 2019 20:21:49 -0500 Received: by mail-wr1-f67.google.com with SMTP id w17so1692742wrn.12 for ; Sat, 02 Mar 2019 17:21:48 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:message-id:user-agent :mime-version; bh=eTnclMCq+BHPb6t5dmTt+lz+pIAGnm/S7fr0yAlWNh4=; b=HitbPMx5mn5nIzSrqBrYS2sYxPrtRPI/o9minxGryZaYsGMdmxoANg7W4kq7iKP6GU HHUgiZt2isokecmSDhtb7AdsdDVMPgkHFTr91RXmvGMOmvyJnXDVyImaDPdzi10Qwor7 9nCTmZ0FDOtMfsYjtMqOyiyoZCniQ4FFsz4c7fmN4XuFApYymQOPxLvvN8B+KFMmhE2T 4nPj0bPEBDsfkAg5S3+6LAwCQMTqDTxCW/GMkicUSib5dsprU2/eqmOePvajDeynHNm9 XxTlzBOoIWcqUAuSYDNpAbKGUrUK5u6V2z0lhCRPHOF5NLbe3p9TInsPkpkdASopkZ+b igqA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date :message-id:user-agent:mime-version; bh=eTnclMCq+BHPb6t5dmTt+lz+pIAGnm/S7fr0yAlWNh4=; b=azOmT6pyCBnSEo1eIhjx8Mr21kGIOpfSDOTIB7pmUyB/l6L4L362WdRXuT/BQD/8dr VRMd5ywV/dnO6y612TcRpVMiy9nLDCWXAXWKgFTfmzCllJveJqPBurUf4BplWnVVLjHT 4RksJ8KP+kFs4qbeLkueJm5BRv3Uor4RJN5IGbnxlgZgUfYNh08nGOsEmRSeZ54Bqyj+ jowuO66DheEmoy6V+JjialjU+svekobyZevOm/sxIIrxmikGMjPmAou4yQ1fchSnMgXy S8Exap5Y+gLQqnC8lgh6tK22HmKjpFxVYNZ6kPl2lrId+FYogNoqmxkg8iLfjJo7VtF6 UQzA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVWKaimIkdg21FPrcjVdUcRCPsR6hLvkD2FTwUIDjpk4H9DPb81 J2AHxwo0RXlwczOpKLiecUM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzv4dV/AC/3fyT1eswLECLKa3TwNIEN+UWrmv/Ps70xroBy1aGoMuXFob1BmqfoLigy+VlyGw== X-Received: by 2002:adf:ee4d:: with SMTP id w13mr8203308wro.16.1551576107886; Sat, 02 Mar 2019 17:21:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (112.68.155.104.bc.googleusercontent.com. [104.155.68.112]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e7sm2146322wrw.35.2019.03.02.17.21.47 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Sat, 02 Mar 2019 17:21:47 -0800 (PST) From: Junio C Hamano To: "Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget" Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Jonathan Tan , Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] fixup! upload-pack: refactor reading of pack-objects out References: <5fa4fcad63e18dd9d840217eb8cf3dab8f69bc1b.1551046329.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2019 10:21:46 +0900 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org "Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget" writes: > From: Johannes Schindelin > > This fixes an issue pointed out by clang. > > Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin > --- > upload-pack.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/upload-pack.c b/upload-pack.c > index 2365b707bc..534e8951a2 100644 > --- a/upload-pack.c > +++ b/upload-pack.c > @@ -179,7 +179,7 @@ static void create_pack_file(const struct object_array *have_obj, > const struct string_list *uri_protocols) > { > struct child_process pack_objects = CHILD_PROCESS_INIT; > - struct output_state output_state = {0}; > + struct output_state output_state = {"\0"}; OK, as the structure looks like struct output_state { char buffer[8193]; int used; ... we obviously cannot initialize buffer[] with a single integer 0 ;-) Between "" and "\0" you wondered elsewhere, I have no strong preference, but if I were fixing it, I would probably write it as struct output_state output_state = { { 0 } }; so that readers do not even have to waste time to wonder between the two. Thanks.