From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 21:26:29 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] GIT: Try all addresses for given remote name
Message-ID: <20050722.172629.73295196.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>
In-Reply-To: <20050722210913.GH11916@pasky.ji.cz>

In article <20050722210913.GH11916@pasky.ji.cz> (at Fri, 22 Jul 2005 23:09:13 +0200), Petr Baudis <pasky@suse.cz> says:

> > -}
> > +#define STR_(s)	# s
> > +#define STR(s)	STR_(s)
> 
> Uh-huh? Why two macros? Well, why any macros at all?
> 
:
> > +	char *colon, *end;
> > +	char *port = STR(DEFAULT_GIT_PORT);
> > +	struct addrinfo hints, *ai0, *ai;

The macro is used here.
This is trick.

After preprocess,

/* --- cut here --- */
#define TEST 12345
#define STR_(s) # s
#define STR(s) STR_(s)

test(STR(TEST));
test(STR_(TEST));
test(# TEST);
/* --- cut here --- */

becomes

test("12345");
test("TEST");
test(# 12345);


> >  	if (sockfd < 0)
> >  		die("unable to create socket (%s)", strerror(errno));
> > -	if (connect(sockfd, (void *)&addr, sizeof(addr)) < 0)
> > -		die("unable to connect (%s)", strerror(errno));
:
> You are saying that you were unable to create socket while you just were
> unable to connect.  Not any biggie, but it saves the user the trouble of
> one strace after being confused by an error message. :-)

In fact, I don't think it is really worng, because it says that
it could not create (connected) socket or endpoint of connection.

Anyway, I agree that it would be confusing.
Better ideas / wordings?

--yoshfuji