Re: [PATCH 5/5] cbtree.h: define cb_init() in terms of CBTREE_INIT
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Sep 28, 2021, 18:32 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqqpmssk0v1.fsf@gitster.g>
- In-Reply-To
- <YVJZrOYucywgoi+v@coredump.intra.peff.net>
Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
Show 10 quoted lines
>> >> + memcpy(t, &blank, sizeof(*t)); >> > >> > Is >> > *t = blank; >> > >> > not a thing in C? > > It would be fine to use struct assignment here, and should be equivalent > in most compilers. They know about memcpy() and will inline it as > appropriate.
FWIW, I'd be fine with structure assignment, but we already have too many such memcpy(<ptr>, &<struct>, sizeof(struct)), adding one more is not giving us too much incremental burden for later clean-up.
> I think some C programmers tend to prefer memcpy() just because that's > how they think. It also wasn't legal in old K&R compilers, but as far as > I know was in C89.
I think so, too.