Christian Couder <[email protected]> writes:
> +enum ws_error_action {
> + nowarn_ws_error,
> + warn_on_ws_error,
> + die_on_ws_error,
> + correct_ws_error
> +};
> +
> struct apply_state {
> const char *prefix;
> int prefix_length;
> @@ -80,6 +87,8 @@ struct apply_state {
> int whitespace_error;
> int squelch_whitespace_errors;
> int applied_after_fixing_ws;
> +
> + enum ws_error_action ws_error_action;
> };
>
> static int newfd = -1;
> @@ -89,12 +98,6 @@ static const char * const apply_usage[] = {
> NULL
> };
>
> -static enum ws_error_action {
> - nowarn_ws_error,
> - warn_on_ws_error,
> - die_on_ws_error,
> - correct_ws_error
> -} ws_error_action = warn_on_ws_error;
This is a good example of a variable that needs initialization,
which is turned into a field in apply_state that needs
initialization. It is done here:
> @@ -4738,6 +4743,7 @@ int cmd_apply(int argc, const char **argv, const char
> *prefix_)
> state.p_value = 1;
> state.p_context = UINT_MAX;
> state.squelch_whitespace_errors = 5;
> + state.ws_error_action = warn_on_ws_error;
> strbuf_init(&state.root, 0);
and we already have these random initial values described here.
As I do not expect that cmd_apply() which is a moral equivalent of
main() will stay to be the only one who wants to see a reasonably
initialized apply_state(), I think the patch that introduced the
very first version of "struct apply_state" should also introduce a
helper function to initialize it, i.e.
static void init_apply_state(struct apply_state *s,
const char *prefix)
{
memset(s, '\0', sizeof(*s));
s->prefix = prefix;
s->prefix_length = s->prefix ? strlen(s->prefix) : 0;
}
in [PATCH 7/xx].
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
