Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] CodingGuidelines: recommend against unportable C99 struct syntax

From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Date: Oct 11, 2022, 08:30 UTC
Message-ID: <221011.86bkqipxpv.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqlepnxl1f.fsf@gitster.g>

On Mon, Oct 10 2022, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 21 quoted lines

> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
>
>> On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 01:38:00PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/CodingGuidelines b/Documentation/CodingGuidelines
>>> index 9598b45f7e..cbe0377699 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/CodingGuidelines
>>> +++ b/Documentation/CodingGuidelines
>>> @@ -242,6 +242,10 @@ For C programs:
>>>       printf("%"PRIuMAX, (uintmax_t)v).  These days the MSVC version we
>>>       rely on supports %z, but the C library used by MinGW does not.
>>>  
>>> +   . Shorthand like ".a.b = *c" in struct assignments is known to trip
>>> +     up an older IBM XLC version, use ".a = { .b = *c }" instead. See
>>> +     the 33665d98e6b portability fix from mid-2022.
>>
>> FWIW, the use of the word "assignment" here left me scratching my head.
>> Reading 33665d98e6b, it is about struct initialization.
>
> Thanks, I missed that confusion in the new description.  Perhaps
> another round of reroll would make the series polished enough?

I could re-roll it, but I also see you extensively fixed it up v.s. my version. I think a re-roll here would just be s/assignments/initializations/, so if you wanted to squash that in to your already extensive squashes...

...or I could also re-roll it, up to you. Just let me know what you'd prefer, thanks!