Jeff King wrote:
> I don't have a strong opinion. The "return 0" is a little misleading,
> since it will never be called, but I think we should at least have a
> comment like:
[...]
> --- a/run-command.c
> +++ b/run-command.c
> @@ -117,8 +117,11 @@ static int exists_in_PATH(const char *file)
>
> int sane_execvp(const char *file, char * const argv[])
> {
> - if (!execvp(file, argv))
> - return 0;
> + /*
> + * No need to check the return value; if it returns at all, an error
> + * occurred.
> + */
> + execvp(file, argv);
>
I'd rather have the "return 0" then. Such a comment that focuses on C
library details rather than providing additional information for
understanding the sane_execvp function is distracting.
--
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