Junio C Hamano <junkio@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> "Shawn O. Pearce" <spearce@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > +static struct archiver_desc
> > +{
> > + const char *name;
> > + write_archive_fn_t write_archive;
> > + parse_extra_args_fn_t parse_extra;
> > +} archivers[] = {
> > + { "tar", write_tar_archive, NULL },
> > + { "zip", write_zip_archive, parse_extra_zip_args },
> > };
>
> If this were a struct with bazillions of fields I might have had
> trouble swallowing the change, but this is so small that it is
> no brainer.
Right; if it was larger I would have been in trouble. :-)
> I think this actually is an improvement.
>
> > static int run_remote_archiver(const char *remote, int argc,
> > @@ -88,7 +86,10 @@ static int init_archiver(const char *nam
> >
> > for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(archivers); i++) {
> > if (!strcmp(name, archivers[i].name)) {
> > - memcpy(ar, &archivers[i], sizeof(struct archiver));
> > + memset(ar, 0, sizeof(*ar));
> > + ar->name = archivers[i].name;
> > + ar->write_archive = archivers[i].write_archive;
> > + ar->parse_extra = archivers[i].parse_extra;
>
> But is this change really needed? Shouldn't a structure
> assignment just work?
No, they are different structs...
Which I did to reduce the size of the initializer (see above)
so that it was a no brainer for you to swallow. :-)
--
Shawn.
-
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