On Mon, Sep 27 2021, Phillip Wood wrote:
> Hi Ævar
>
> On 27/09/2021 01:39, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>> Use the same pattern for cb_init() as the one established in the
>> recent refactoring of other such patterns in
>> 5726a6b4012 (*.c *_init(): define in terms of corresponding *_INIT
>> macro, 2021-07-01).
>> Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> cbtree.h | 5 +++--
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> diff --git a/cbtree.h b/cbtree.h
>> index a04a312c3f5..dedbb8e2a45 100644
>> --- a/cbtree.h
>> +++ b/cbtree.h
>> @@ -37,11 +37,12 @@ enum cb_next {
>> CB_BREAK = 1
>> };
>> -#define CBTREE_INIT { .root = NULL }
>> +#define CBTREE_INIT { 0 }
>> static inline void cb_init(struct cb_tree *t)
>> {
>> - t->root = NULL;
>> + struct cb_tree blank = CBTREE_INIT;
>> + memcpy(t, &blank, sizeof(*t));
>> }
>
> Slightly off topic but would this be a good site for a compound
> literal test balloon?
>
> *t = (struct cb_tree){ 0 };
>
> Compound literals are in C99 and seem to have been supported by MSVC
> since 2013 [1].
I think that's a good thing to test out, FWIW I've also tested it on the
IBM xlc, Oracle SunCC and HP/UX's aCC, they all seem to accept it.
But I'd prefer just doing that in some general follow-up to bd4232fac33
(Merge branch 'ab/struct-init', 2021-07-16), i.e. let's just use the
init pattern it established here.
