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

> On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 20:46, Erik Faye-Lund <kusmabite@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 8:08 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> 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).
>
> FYI: In contrast to previous versions, Visual Studio 2010 ships with a
> stdint.h header which defines INTMAX_MAX etc. However, that stdint.h
> is not included by limits.h (in fact, not by *any* other shipping
> header file, as it seems), so we should not run into any trouble even
> with VS2010.
>