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:
Show 25 quoted lines
> 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.
So I agree with Erik about patch 3/N:
Acked-by: Sebastian Schuberth <sschuberth@gmail.com>
--
Sebastian Schuberth
Sebastian Schuberth <sschuberth@gmail.com>