Re: [PATCH 14/14] wt-status.c: Initialise variable to suppress msvc warning

From: Erik Faye-Lund <kusmabite@gmail.com>
Date: Dec 9, 2010, 19:46 UTC
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=SzDhoQnLeKUvWe7A6r-7MT-DTLuDGLprqid9X@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7vmxoeg3wp.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 8:08 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 14 quoted lines

> Ramsay Jones <ramsay@ramsay1.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>> Junio, could you please drop patches 5-14 from the series; the first four patches
>> are the important ones and I'd rather they didn't get held up. Thanks!
>
> Have these four patches been Acked by interested parties?
>
> I think I saw 1/N and 2/N acked by Erik and 4/N acked by SSchuberth and
> J6t, but any words on 3/N?
>
> Not that I deeply care nor have environment to test changes to [3/N], but
> I am wondering if these need conditional definition to futureproof (e.g.
> what happens when the header you are using the definition _I64_MIN from,
> or some other headers, started defining these constats?).

I'm not sure if I follow this entirely. _I64_MIN is defined by limits.h on Windows, and limits.h has a header-guard (or "#pragma once" as Microsoft-code tends to prefer).

Oh, right. You mean if someone else starts defining INTMAX_MAX etc? If someone includes an stdint/inttypes-implementation while including git-compat-util.h, we're going to have a boat-load of similar issues anyway. I think guarding them is something that's better left to when we encounter the problem (if ever).

All in all, patch 1 though 4 looks good to me. And thanks to Ramsay for cleaning up my mess :)