On May 9, 2016 3:40 PM Philip Oakley wrote:
> From: "Stefan Beller"
> > On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 12:57 PM, Junio C Hamano
> wrote:
> >> Marc Branchaud writes:
> >>
> >>> On 2016-05-06 02:54 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> I
From: "Stefan Beller"
On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 12:57 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Marc Branchaud writes:
On 2016-05-06 02:54 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
I wonder if can we come up with a short and sweet notation to remind
futhre
On 06/05/16 21:21, Ramsay Jones wrote:
> On 06/05/16 19:54, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Ramsay Jones writes:
>>
[snip]
> I still can't get gcc to complain, e.g. (on top of above):
>
> $ git diff
> diff --git a/builtin/rev-list.c b/builtin/rev-list.c
> index
On 2016-05-06 03:57 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Marc Branchaud writes:
On 2016-05-06 02:54 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
I wonder if can we come up with a short and sweet notation to remind
futhre readers that this "initialization" is not initializing but
merely squelching
On 06/05/16 19:54, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Ramsay Jones writes:
>
>> The patch below applies to master (I haven't checked for any more
>> additions).
>>
>> if (bisect_list) {
>> -int reaches = reaches, all = all;
>> +int reaches = 0,
On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 12:57 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Marc Branchaud writes:
>
>> On 2016-05-06 02:54 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>>
>>> I wonder if can we come up with a short and sweet notation to remind
>>> futhre readers that this "initialization"
Marc Branchaud writes:
> On 2016-05-06 02:54 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>
>> I wonder if can we come up with a short and sweet notation to remind
>> futhre readers that this "initialization" is not initializing but
>> merely squelching warnings from stupid compilers, and
On 2016-05-06 02:54 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
I wonder if can we come up with a short and sweet notation to remind
futhre readers that this "initialization" is not initializing but
merely squelching warnings from stupid compilers, and agree to use
it consistently?
Perhaps
#define
Ramsay Jones writes:
> The patch below applies to master (I haven't checked for any more
> additions).
>
> if (bisect_list) {
> - int reaches = reaches, all = all;
> + int reaches = 0, all = 0;
One thing that is somewhat sad is that
From: "Ramsay Jones"
On 06/05/16 14:15, Philip Oakley wrote:
From: "Duy Nguyen"
On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 4:41 AM, Junio C Hamano
wrote:
"Philip Oakley" writes:
int saved_namelen = saved_namelen;
On 06/05/16 14:15, Philip Oakley wrote:
> From: "Duy Nguyen"
>> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 4:41 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>> "Philip Oakley" writes:
>>>
int saved_namelen = saved_namelen; /* compiler workaround */
From: "Duy Nguyen"
On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 4:41 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
"Philip Oakley" writes:
int saved_namelen = saved_namelen; /* compiler workaround */
Which then becomes an MSVC compile warning C4700: uninitialized
On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 4:41 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "Philip Oakley" writes:
>
>> int saved_namelen = saved_namelen; /* compiler workaround */
>>
>> Which then becomes an MSVC compile warning C4700: uninitialized local
>> variable.
>>
>> I'm
"Philip Oakley" writes:
> int saved_namelen = saved_namelen; /* compiler workaround */
>
> Which then becomes an MSVC compile warning C4700: uninitialized local
> variable.
>
> I'm wondering what was the compiler workaround being referred to? i.e. why
> does it need
Duy,
In
https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/commit/b3c96fb158f05152336f167076f5d81d23c3a5e5
(split-index: strip pathname of on-disk replaced entries, 13 Jun 2014)
Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy you have
read-cache.c#L1790 (in that commit, now ~L1873)
int saved_namelen =
15 matches
Mail list logo