From: Joachim Schmitz <jojo@schmitz-digital.de>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 10:36:37 GMT
Subject: RE: git on HP NonStop
Message-ID: <000701cd7ebf$af552aa0$0dff7fe0$@schmitz-digital.de>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LNX.2.01.1208191824100.29175@frira.zrqbmnf.qr>

> From: Jan Engelhardt [mailto:jengelh@inai.de]
> Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2012 6:26 PM
> To: Joachim Schmitz
> Cc: 'Junio C Hamano'; git@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: RE: git on HP NonStop
> 
> 
> On Tuesday 2012-08-14 17:52, Joachim Schmitz wrote:
> > @@ -98,6 +99,11 @@
> > #include <stdlib.h>
> > #include <stdarg.h>
> > #include <string.h>
> >+#ifdef __TANDEM
> >+# include <strings.h> /* for strcasecmp() */
> >+  typedef int intptr_t; /* not "int *" ?!? */
> >+  typedef unsigned int uintptr_t; /* not "unsigned int *" ?!? */
> 
> Of course not. intptr_t is an integral value capable of holding a pointer;
it is not
> a pointer to int (because that would really be redundant to int*.)

OK, thanks for the clarification.

Another issue I stumbled across:
There are numerous places (well, some 10) were something like the following
is done

int var = var;
char *othervar = othervar;

Here this leads to Compiler warnings  'variable "var" is used before its
value is set' on NonStop. This self-initialization seems to be a GCC
extension (?), but even gcc has a -Winit-self option to warn about this.
Shouldn't that better be like the following?

int var = 0;
char *othervar = NULL;

What is the reason for using that self-init stuff? I don't think it is
really portable, is it?

Bye, Jojo