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

From: Ben Peart <peartben@gmail.com>
Date: Jul 10, 2017, 17:57 UTC
Message-ID: <15867357-5b3f-b12e-8bc3-125b3f2f18f0@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20170710160432.4mmcoqh7yi5cqdhy@sigill.intra.peff.net>

On 7/10/2017 12:04 PM, Jeff King wrote:

Show 13 quoted lines

> 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 supported, but not
>>> a guarantee (e.g., gcc had designated initializers before
>>> C99 existed).
>>
>> Correct.  MSVC also supports designated initializers but does not fully
>> support C99.
> 
> Out of curiosity, does MSVC define __STDC_VERSION__, and if so, to what?

It does not. While it does support a subset of C99's features, it doesn't support the entirety of that language so defining __STDC_VERSION__ would be inaccurate and misleading.

Show 17 quoted lines

> 
>>> And obviously before releasing this or anything similar, it would be
>>> nice to see results from people building pu. I'm especially curious
>>> whether MSVC would work with this (or if people even still use it, since
>>> Git for Windows is pretty mature?).
>>
>> We do use MSVC internally as that gives us access to the great debuggers and
>> profilers on the Windows platform.  Fortunately, this particular C99
>> construct _is_ supported by MSVC.  I applied the patch below and complied it
>> with both MSVC and gcc for Windows and both builds succeeded.
> 
> Thanks. This kind of prompt testing and response is very appreciated. It
> is unfortunate if we have to pick and choose C99-isms rather than using
> the whole thing as a base. But that's probably just reality.
> 
> -Peff
>