Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] parse-options: add precision handling for PARSE_OPT_CMDMODE

From: René Scharfe <l.s.r@web.de>
Date: Jul 9, 2025, 15:05 UTC
Message-ID: <144ecb24-4da2-4311-bf26-3101788f4b12@web.de>
In-Reply-To: <aG51nFpH6kMT95uf@pks.im>

On 7/9/25 3:58 PM, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:

Show 5 quoted lines

> On Wed, Jul 09, 2025 at 11:45:14AM +0200, René Scharfe wrote:
>>
>> Call the function that does the raw casting do_get_int_value() to
>> reserve the name get_int_value() for a more friendly wrapper we're
>> going to introduce in one of the next patches.

Show 14 quoted lines

>> diff --git a/parse-options.c b/parse-options.c
>> index 68ff494492..ddac008a5e 100644
>> --- a/parse-options.c
>> +++ b/parse-options.c
>> @@ -68,6 +68,26 @@ static char *fix_filename(const char *prefix, const char *file)
>>  		return prefix_filename_except_for_dash(prefix, file);
>>  }
>>  
>> +static int do_get_int_value(const void *value, size_t precision, intmax_t *ret)
> 
> Nit: after the fourth patch we have `do_get_int_value()` and
> `get_int_value()`, where the major difference is that the latter dies if
> we failed to parse the value. It might be easier to discern which is
> which if we called them `get_int_value()` and `get_int_value_or_die()`.

That would be misleading because get_int_value() doesn't die() like a function from write-or-die.c, it BUGs instead. I don't think it makes sense to advertise the presence of assertions in a function's name. But we do have a tradition of using a prefix of "do_" with wrapped functions that have a more raw interface and do the actual work.

Nit: They don't parse, but cast a void pointer to the appropriate type
and dereference it.

René