Re: [PATCH] strbuf: use designated initializers in STRBUF_INIT

On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 07:43:09AM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote: > > - There were occasional cases where we wished if variable-length > >arrays, flexible array members and variadic macros were available > >in our codebase during the course of this project. We would > >probably want to

Re: [PATCH] strbuf: use designated initializers in STRBUF_INIT

On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 09:11:33AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Junio C Hamano writes: > > > Oh, absolutely. > > > > Here is another possible test balloon, that may actually be useful > > as an example. I think there is a topic in flight that touches this > > array,

Re: [PATCH] strbuf: use designated initializers in STRBUF_INIT

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason writes: > On Fri, Jul 14 2017, Junio C. Hamano jotted: > >> Junio C Hamano writes: >> >> - This may be showing I am not just old fashioned but also am >>ignorant, but I do not see much point in using the following in >>our

Re: [PATCH] strbuf: use designated initializers in STRBUF_INIT

On Fri, Jul 14 2017, Junio C. Hamano jotted: > Junio C Hamano writes: > > - This may be showing I am not just old fashioned but also am >ignorant, but I do not see much point in using the following in >our codebase (iow, I am not aware of places in the existing code

Re: [PATCH] strbuf: use designated initializers in STRBUF_INIT

Junio C Hamano writes: > Do we need to have a check to detect a buggy compiler that takes the > syntax but produces an incorrectly initialized array? I could add a > test to ensure that HEADER comes out BOLD, etc. (or we may already > have such a test) and then reorder these

Re: [PATCH] strbuf: use designated initializers in STRBUF_INIT

Jeff King writes: >> +static int clean_use_color = -1; >> +static char clean_colors[][COLOR_MAXLEN] = { >> +[CLEAN_COLOR_RESET] = GIT_COLOR_RESET, >> +[CLEAN_COLOR_PLAIN] = GIT_COLOR_NORMAL, >> +[CLEAN_COLOR_PROMPT] = GIT_COLOR_BOLD_BLUE, >> +[CLEAN_COLOR_HEADER] =

Re: [PATCH] strbuf: use designated initializers in STRBUF_INIT

On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 09:11:33AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > As to other things that we currently not allow in our codebase that > newer compilers can grok, here is what *I* think. It is *not* meant > to be an exhaustive "what's new in C99 that is not in C89? what is > the final verdict on

Re: [PATCH] strbuf: use designated initializers in STRBUF_INIT

On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 9:11 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > - I prefer to keep decl-after-statement out of our codebase. I >view it as a big plus in code-readability to be able to see a >complete list of variables that will be used in a block upfront >before

Re: [PATCH] strbuf: use designated initializers in STRBUF_INIT

Junio C Hamano writes: > Oh, absolutely. > > Here is another possible test balloon, that may actually be useful > as an example. I think there is a topic in flight that touches this > array, unfortunately, so I probably would find another one that is > more stable for a real

Re: [PATCH] strbuf: use designated initializers in STRBUF_INIT

Am 12.07.2017 um 21:12 schrieb Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason: I think in the context of this desire Johannes Sixt's "Actually, I'm serious [about let's compile with c++]"[1] should be given some more consideration. Thank you for your support. I've just compiled Git with it and it passes all tests.

Re: [PATCH] strbuf: use designated initializers in STRBUF_INIT

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason writes: > On Tue, Jul 11 2017, Junio C. Hamano jotted: > >> Just so that people do not misunderstand, it is not our goal to >> declare that now you need a fully C99 compiler to build Git. >> ... > > I think in the context of this desire Johannes Sixt's

Re: [PATCH] strbuf: use designated initializers in STRBUF_INIT

On Tue, Jul 11 2017, Junio C. Hamano jotted: > Ben Peart writes: > >>> If this patch can survive a few releases without complaint, >>> then we can feel more confident that designated initializers >>> are widely supported by our user base. It also is an >>> indication that

Re: [PATCH] strbuf: use designated initializers in STRBUF_INIT

Am 12.07.2017 um 03:26 schrieb brian m. carlson: On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 07:24:07AM +0200, Johannes Sixt wrote: I can revive the patches if there is interest. I'd be interested in at least a pointer to them if you have one. I think it might allow us to take advantage of desirable features

Re: [PATCH] strbuf: use designated initializers in STRBUF_INIT

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 07:24:07AM +0200, Johannes Sixt wrote: > Am 11.07.2017 um 02:05 schrieb brian m. carlson: > > I have tried compiling Git with a C++ compiler, so that I could test > > whether that was a viable alternative for MSVC in case its C++ mode > > supported features its C mode did

Re: [PATCH] strbuf: use designated initializers in STRBUF_INIT

Ben Peart writes: >> If this patch can survive a few releases without complaint, >> then we can feel more confident that designated initializers >> are widely supported by our user base. It also is an >> indication that other C99 features may be supported, but not >> a

Re: [PATCH] strbuf: use designated initializers in STRBUF_INIT

Am 11.07.2017 um 02:05 schrieb brian m. carlson: On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 09:57:40PM +0200, Johannes Sixt wrote: It's a pity, though, that you do not suggest something even more useful, such as C++14. I have tried compiling Git with a C++ compiler, so that I could test whether that was a

Re: [PATCH] strbuf: use designated initializers in STRBUF_INIT

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:57:57AM -0400, Ben Peart wrote: > Correct. MSVC also supports designated initializers but does not fully > support C99. Precision: *recent versions* of MSVC support designated initializer. 2013 introduced them, but there were bugs until 2015, see e.g.

Re: [PATCH] strbuf: use designated initializers in STRBUF_INIT

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 11:11:35PM +0200, Johannes Sixt wrote: > > I am not sure what negative impact you think the macro-ness would > > have to the validity of the result from this test balloon. An old > > compiler that does not understand designated initializer syntax > > would fail to compile

Re: [PATCH] strbuf: use designated initializers in STRBUF_INIT

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 05:07:43PM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote: > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 5:05 PM, brian m. carlson > wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 09:57:40PM +0200, Johannes Sixt wrote: > >> It's a pity, though, that you do not suggest something even more

Re: [PATCH] strbuf: use designated initializers in STRBUF_INIT

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 5:05 PM, brian m. carlson wrote: > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 09:57:40PM +0200, Johannes Sixt wrote: >> It's a pity, though, that you do not suggest something even more useful, >> such as C++14. > > I have tried compiling Git with a C++ compiler,

Re: [PATCH] strbuf: use designated initializers in STRBUF_INIT

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 09:57:40PM +0200, Johannes Sixt wrote: > It's a pity, though, that you do not suggest something even more useful, > such as C++14. I have tried compiling Git with a C++ compiler, so that I could test whether that was a viable alternative for MSVC in case its C++ mode

Re: [PATCH] strbuf: use designated initializers in STRBUF_INIT

ce it en masse for the remainder of the system? > > > > That way, we will see if there are people who need pre-C99 soon > > enough, and we won't have to scramble reverting too many changes > > when it happens. > > Neat idea. Something like this? > > -- >8

Re: [PATCH] strbuf: use designated initializers in STRBUF_INIT

Stefan Beller writes: > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Credit goes to Brandon for spotting it, but the introduction of > "trailing comma at the end of enum definition is allowed in c99" > is e1327023ea (grep: refactor the

Re: [PATCH] strbuf: use designated initializers in STRBUF_INIT

Johannes Sixt writes: >> I am not sure what negative impact you think the macro-ness would >> have to the validity of the result from this test balloon. An old >> compiler that does not understand designated initializer syntax >> would fail to compile both the same way, no? >> >>

Re: [PATCH] strbuf: use designated initializers in STRBUF_INIT

oid wasting time. Actually, I'm serious. Subject: [PATCH] strbuf: use designated initializers in STRBUF_INIT -#define STRBUF_INIT { 0, 0, strbuf_slopbuf } +#define STRBUF_INIT { .alloc = 0, .len = 0, .buf = strbuf_slopbuf } While this may serve as a test balloon, changing STRBUF_INIT, or any of th

Re: [PATCH] strbuf: use designated initializers in STRBUF_INIT

Johannes Sixt <j...@kdbg.org> writes: > It's a pity, though, that you do not suggest something even more > useful, such as C++14. I cannot tell if this part is tongue-in-cheek (especially the "++"), so I will ignore it to avoid wasting time. >> Subject: [P

Re: [PATCH] strbuf: use designated initializers in STRBUF_INIT

moving to a more modern build environment. by starting to use some of the useful features like designated initializers, It's a pity, though, that you do not suggest something even more useful, such as C++14. Subject: [PATCH] strbuf: use designated initializers in STRBUF_INIT -#define STRBU

Re: [PATCH] strbuf: use designated initializers in STRBUF_INIT

On 7/10/2017 12:04 PM, Jeff King wrote: On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:57:57AM -0400, Ben Peart wrote: If this patch can survive a few releases without complaint, then we can feel more confident that designated initializers are widely supported by our user base. It also is an indication that

Re: [PATCH] strbuf: use designated initializers in STRBUF_INIT

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > >>> That way, we will see if there are people who need pre-C99 soon >>> enough, and we won't have to scramble reverting too many changes >>> when it happens. >> >> Neat idea. Something

Re: [PATCH] strbuf: use designated initializers in STRBUF_INIT

On Jul 10 2017, Jeff King wrote: > If this patch can survive a few releases without complaint, > then we can feel more confident that designated initializers > are widely supported by our user base. It also is an > indication that other C99 features may be supported, but not > a

Re: [PATCH] strbuf: use designated initializers in STRBUF_INIT

ndon for 4538eef5 ("grep: add submodules as a grep source type", 2016-12-16). > -- >8 -- > Subject: [PATCH] strbuf: use designated initializers in STRBUF_INIT > > There are certain C99 features that might be nice to use in > our code base, but we've hesitated to do so in order to

Re: [PATCH] strbuf: use designated initializers in STRBUF_INIT

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:57:57AM -0400, Ben Peart wrote: > > If this patch can survive a few releases without complaint, > > then we can feel more confident that designated initializers > > are widely supported by our user base. It also is an > > indication that other C99 features may be

Re: [PATCH] strbuf: use designated initializers in STRBUF_INIT

people who need pre-C99 soon enough, and we won't have to scramble reverting too many changes when it happens. Neat idea. Something like this? -- >8 -- Subject: [PATCH] strbuf: use designated initializers in STRBUF_INIT There are certain C99 features that might be nice to use in our code base,

[PATCH] strbuf: use designated initializers in STRBUF_INIT

if there are people who need pre-C99 soon > enough, and we won't have to scramble reverting too many changes > when it happens. Neat idea. Something like this? -- >8 -- Subject: [PATCH] strbuf: use designated initializers in STRBUF_INIT There are certain C99 features that might be nice to