Re: [PATCH 5/5] cbtree.h: define cb_init() in terms of CBTREE_INIT

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Am 28.09.21 um 01:54 schrieb Jeff King:
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 01:02:35PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> 
>>>>  static inline void cb_init(struct cb_tree *t)
>>>>  {
>>>> -	t->root = NULL;
>>>> +	struct cb_tree blank = CBTREE_INIT;
>>>
>>> This could be
>>>
>>> 	static const struct cb_tree blank = CBTREE_INIT;
>>
>> *nod*...
>> [...]
>> ...but to both this & the above my reply in the side-thread at
>> https://lore.kernel.org/git/87h7e61duk.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
>> applies. I.e. this is just following a pattern I got from Jeff King &
>> used in bd4232fac33 (Merge branch 'ab/struct-init', 2021-07-16).
> 
> I'm not sure how a compiler would react to the "static const" thing. I
> tested the compiler output for the "auto" struct case you've written
> here, and at least gcc and clang are smart enough to just initialize the
> pointed-to struct directly, with no extra copy.

Good! Then a deviation from established patterns is not warranted.

-- Hannes



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux