Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] CodingGuidelines: recommend against unportable C99 struct syntax

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Oct 11, 2022, 00:26 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqlepnxl1f.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <Y0S0Tpn/uCjG9J61@coredump.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

Show 16 quoted lines

> On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 01:38:00PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/CodingGuidelines b/Documentation/CodingGuidelines
>> index 9598b45f7e..cbe0377699 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/CodingGuidelines
>> +++ b/Documentation/CodingGuidelines
>> @@ -242,6 +242,10 @@ For C programs:
>>       printf("%"PRIuMAX, (uintmax_t)v).  These days the MSVC version we
>>       rely on supports %z, but the C library used by MinGW does not.
>>  
>> +   . Shorthand like ".a.b = *c" in struct assignments is known to trip
>> +     up an older IBM XLC version, use ".a = { .b = *c }" instead. See
>> +     the 33665d98e6b portability fix from mid-2022.
>
> FWIW, the use of the word "assignment" here left me scratching my head.
> Reading 33665d98e6b, it is about struct initialization.

Thanks, I missed that confusion in the new description. Perhaps another round of reroll would make the series polished enough?