Re: [PATCH 0/6] remove USE_THE_INDEX_COMPATIBILITY_MACROS

From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Date: Dec 19, 2022, 15:11 UTC
Message-ID: <221219.86cz8fzara.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <11545cde-9ce2-acf4-7c08-1b49d2dbefa2@dunelm.org.uk>

On Mon, Dec 19 2022, Phillip Wood wrote:

Show 20 quoted lines

> Hi Ævar
>
> On 15/12/2022 09:58, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>> My recent now-landed topic[1] to remove most use of
>> "USE_THE_INDEX_COMPATIBILITY_MACROS" was merged in 041df69edd3 (Merge
>> branch 'ab/fewer-the-index-macros', 2022-11-28).
>> It left out use of the macros that would have conflicted with
>> in-flight changes, but as those topics have landed we can now complete
>> the migration.
>> As before this is almost entirely a matter of applying the existing
>> "pending" coccinelle rules, the exceptions being 1/6, and the *.h
>> changes where we remove the macro definitions (the macro users being
>> edited by coccinelle).
>> The 4-5/6 then handle some edge cases we had left (but the code
>> change
>> itself is done by coccinelle).
>
> I've only given these patches a quick scan, but I think they look
> good. None of the callers that are converted here are in library code
> so using the_index makes perfect sense.

Thanks for the review.

That's correct, although even if that were the case that wouldn't be an issue with this migration, as we'd have been using "the_index" before, just indirectly through a macro.

That wasn't the case here, but I do I have another similar migration for migrating "the_repository" wrappers.

In those cases there's surely instances where e.g. we really should be using a "r" argument instead, but I've opted to leave that question out, as it would make the coccinelle rules involved & diffs much harder to deal with.

And because in the end the result is the same if viewed with "cc -E", i.e. these are just the macro shims we've been meaning to stop using for a while.