threads / patch / 30088

patchconfig: remove useless assignment

Subject: [PATCH] config: remove useless assignment

## tl;dr

2 messages between Mar 28, 2012 and Mar 28, 2012. Diffs are folded; open one to read it.

replies: 1people: 2as markdown or json

René Scharfe· Mar 28, 2012, 20:18 UTC · lore

v1.7.9-8-g270a344 (config: stop using config_exclusive_filename) replaced config_exclusive_filename with given_config_file. In one case this resulted in a self-assignment, which is reported by clang as a warning. Remove the useless code.

Signed-off-by: Rene Scharfe <rene.scharfe@lsrfire.ath.cx>
---
 builtin/config.c |    2 --
 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
Show changes to builtin/config.c +0 −2
diff --git a/builtin/config.c b/builtin/config.c
index d41a9bf..33c8820 100644
--- a/builtin/config.c
+++ b/builtin/config.c
@@ -397,8 +397,6 @@ int cmd_config(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
 				xstrdup(prefix_filename(prefix,
 							strlen(prefix),
 							given_config_file));
-		else
-			given_config_file = given_config_file;
 	}
 
 	if (respect_includes == -1)
-- 
1.7.9.2
Jeff King· Mar 28, 2012, 20:22 UTC · re: René Scharfe · lore

Re: [PATCH] config: remove useless assignment

On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 10:18:37PM +0200, René Scharfe wrote:
Show 21 quoted lines
> v1.7.9-8-g270a344 (config: stop using config_exclusive_filename) replaced
> config_exclusive_filename with given_config_file.  In one case this
> resulted in a self-assignment, which is reported by clang as a warning.
> Remove the useless code.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Rene Scharfe <rene.scharfe@lsrfire.ath.cx>
> ---
>  builtin/config.c |    2 --
>  1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/builtin/config.c b/builtin/config.c
> index d41a9bf..33c8820 100644
> --- a/builtin/config.c
> +++ b/builtin/config.c
> @@ -397,8 +397,6 @@ int cmd_config(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
>  				xstrdup(prefix_filename(prefix,
>  							strlen(prefix),
>  							given_config_file));
> -		else
> -			given_config_file = given_config_file;
>  	}

Thanks. I remember refactoring that part of the conditional several times while figuring out the right ordering of my refactoring patches, but obviously I missed removing the stale code on the final pass-through.

Acked-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
-Peff

← back to recent threads