Erik Faye-Lund <kusmabite@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:19 AM, David Kastrup <dak@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Chris Packham <judge.packham@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> On 28/05/14 18:14, Jeremiah Mahler wrote:
>>>> static void clear_progress_signal(void)
>>>> {
>>>> struct itimerval v = {{0,},};
>>>> + struct sigaction sa;
>>>> +
>>>> + memset(&sa, 0, sizeof(sa));
>>>> + sa.sa_handler = SIG_IGN;
>>>
>>> A C99 initialiser here would save the call to memset. Unfortunately
>>> Documentation/CodingGuidelines is fairly clear on not using C99
>>> initialisers, given the fact we're now at git 2.0 maybe it's time to
>>> revisit this policy?
>>
>> If I look at the initialization of v in the context immediately above
>> the new code, it would appear that somebody already revisited this
>> policy.
>
> Huh, the initialization of v doesn't use C99-features...?
Well, for me anything post-K&R apparently is C99.
Cf
<URL:http://computer-programming-forum.com/47-c-language/859a1b6693a0ddc5.htm>
I have to admit that gcc -c -ansi -std=c89 -pedantic does not complain,
so that makes it quite probable that I was erring somewhat on the side
of the ancient ones and zeros.
--
David Kastrup
--
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