Re: [PATCH 00/37] removal of some c++ keywords

From: Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com>
Date: Jan 31, 2018, 01:05 UTC
Message-ID: <CACsJy8A=wLAY_Jmw-DRd_R0i-SW0qB-d9m13GohfTk16DY2ejg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGZ79kZNB=3fXOeJwhXGqyBi3mKmE-9nmM-ooXJOzy5OcYaoqQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 7:57 AM, Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> wrote:

Show 5 quoted lines

>> There's also C99 designator in builtin/clean.c (I thought we avoided
>> C99, I can start using this specific feature more now :D)
>
> That was a test balloon? See 512f41cfac
> (clean.c: use designated initializer, 2017-07-14)

Aww.. I thought it was in there since forever and it should be safe to use now...

Show 6 quoted lines

> One of the big advantages would be stricter type checking, such as
> signed/unsigned confusion, that we occasionally have.
> e.g. 61d36330b4 (prefer "!=" when checking read_in_full()
> result, 2017-09-27) or what is referenced from there 561598cfcf
> (read_pack_header: handle signed/unsigned comparison in read result,
> 2017-09-13).

We can do that even with C (at least with gcc and I guess clang as well). The problem is it looks so bad right now that I have to turn it off with -Wno-sign-compare

> The bugs resulting in these patches could have been caught more easily
> with C++ checking IMHO.

-- 
Duy