On Mon, Oct 29 2018, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> This is the first use of the %N$<fmt> style of printf format in
>> the *.[ch] files in our codebase. It's supported by POSIX[2] and
>> there's existing uses for it in po/*.po files,...
>
> For now, I'll eject this from 'pu', as I had spent way too much time
> trying to make it and other topics work there.
I was compiling with DEVELOPER=1 but as it turns out:
CFLAGS="-O0" DEVELOPER=1
Wasn't doing what I thought, i.e. we just take 'CFLAGS' from the
command-line and don't add any of the DEVELOPER #leftoverbits to
it. Will fix this and other issues raised.
> CC remote.o
> remote.c: In function 'show_push_unqualified_ref_name_error':
> remote.c:1035:2: error: $ operand number used after format without operand number [-Werror=format=]
> error(_("The destination you provided is not a full refname (i.e.,\n"
> ^~~~~
> cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
> Makefile:2323: recipe for target 'remote.o' failed
> make: *** [remote.o] Error 1
Will fix this and other issues raised. FWIW clang gives a much better
error about the actual issue:
remote.c:1042:46: error: cannot mix positional and non-positional arguments in format string [-Werror,-Wformat]
"- Checking if the <src> being pushed ('%2$s')\n"
I.e. this on top fixes it:
- "- Looking for a ref that matches '%s' on the remote side.\n"
- "- Checking if the <src> being pushed ('%s')\n"
+ "- Looking for a ref that matches '%1$s' on the remote side.\n"
+ "- Checking if the <src> being pushed ('%2$s')\n"
Maybe this whole thing isn't worth it and I should just do:
@@ -1042 +1042 @@ static void show_push_unqualified_ref_name_error(const char *dst_value,
- "- Checking if the <src> being pushed ('%2$s')\n"
+ "- Checking if the <src> being pushed ('%s')\n"
@@ -1047 +1047 @@ static void show_push_unqualified_ref_name_error(const char *dst_value,
- dst_value, matched_src_name);
+ dst_value, matched_src_name, matched_src_name);
But I'm leaning on the side of keeping it for the self-documentation
aspect of "this is a repeated parameter". Your objections to this whole
thing being a stupid idea non-withstanding.
