Hi Pierre, On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 12:18:48PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 09:26:23AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 02:41:33PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > > > The ?: operator has a lower priority than |, so the implicit associativity > > > > made the 6th argument of parse_options be PARSE_OPT_KEEP_DASHDASH if > > > > keep_dashdash was true discarding PARSE_OPT_STOP_AT_NON_OPTION and > > > > PARSE_OPT_SHELL_EVAL. > > > > > > Wow, this is an age-old breakage dating back to 6e0800e (parse-opt: make > > > PARSE_OPT_STOP_AT_NON_OPTION available to git rev-parse, 2009-06-14) that > > > dates back to the very original --stop-at-non-option patch, isn't it? > > I made a quick C-quiz at my company asking what's wrong with 6e0800e. > > > > Apart from the bug fixed in my patch a colleague wondered about > > stop_at_non_option being static. I think it doesn't do any harm, still > > I think being an automatic variable would be more common. Is the static > > intended here? This was introduced in > > 21d4783538662143ef52ed6967c948ab27586232, so I cc:d Pierre. > > Well, the sole difference is that it makes &stop_at_non_option been > computed at compile time instead of runtime, which is pretty much the > same. cmd_parseopt isn't meant to be reentrant so it's not important. I don't know about x86, but I think on arm computing at compile time isn't cheaper than at runtime, it's just pc-relative instead of sp-relative. But having the variable automatic saves a bit of heap. Probably not worth to discuss about these two ints though. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html