Re: [PATCH 10/10] reftable: make reftable_record a tagged union

From: Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com>
Date: Dec 8, 2021, 14:35 UTC
Message-ID: <072ff09c-9174-e769-7ebb-4bb248199337@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <8deccc3a1dff7e4f7d613fa63d2781fd1f11f841.1638899124.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com>

On 12/7/2021 12:45 PM, Han-Wen Nienhuys via GitGitGadget wrote:

Show 25 quoted lines

> From: Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanwen@google.com>
> 
> This reduces the amount of glue code, because we don't need a void pointer or
> vtable within the structure.
> 
> The only snag is that reftable_index_record contain a strbuf, so it cannot be
> zero-initialized. To address this, introduce reftable_record_for() to create a
> fresh instance, given a record type.
> 
> Thanks to Peff for the suggestion.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanwen@google.com>
> ---
>  reftable/block.c       |   4 +-
>  reftable/block_test.c  |  22 +++---
>  reftable/generic.c     |  35 ++++----
>  reftable/iter.c        |   4 +-
>  reftable/merged.c      |  37 ++++-----
>  reftable/pq.c          |   3 +-
>  reftable/pq_test.c     |  31 ++++----
>  reftable/reader.c      | 105 ++++++++++++------------
>  reftable/record.c      | 176 ++++++++++++++++-------------------------
>  reftable/record.h      |  45 +++++------
>  reftable/record_test.c | 162 +++++++++++++++++++------------------
>  reftable/writer.c      |  46 ++++++-----

This is a HUGE diff, especially compared to the previous changes in this series. I recommend splitting this out into its own series and finding a way to break it down into smaller changes.

Thanks, -Stolee