Re: [PATCH/RFC 0/3] pedantic errors in next

From: Eric Wong <e@80x24.org>
Date: Aug 9, 2021, 20:10 UTC
Message-ID: <20210809201050.GA8077@dcvr>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqtujyftzx.fsf@gitster.g>

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 11 quoted lines

> Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belón  <carenas@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > Building next with pedantic enabled shows the following 2 issues that
> > were originally in ew/many-alternate-optim, apologies for not catching
> > them earlier.
> 
> This of course affects 'master'.
> 
> The first two look trivially correct and I am tempted to take them
> in -rc2; the last one, from my cursory look, I didn't see anything
> wrong in it, but is not all that urgent, either.

Agreed on all counts.

I've been starting to think oidtree/cbtree would be better done as BSD-style macro-defined functions (similar to how khash.h is, or sys/{queue,tree}.h on *BSD systems).

I prefer Linux(kernel)-style container_of generics since I find them easier-to-follow and have extra type-checking, but with a flex-array it's not pedantically correct.

So I guess using CPP like khash does might be a better way to go, here.

Thoughts?

Side note: I've also been considering Perl as a more powerful CPP replacement so I could use the same code for a persistent on-disk store (it would be easier to swap in pread/mmap use). An on-disk format could make it good for refs and pre-packed object storage (perhaps replacing loose objects).