On Tue, Sep 28 2021, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > >>> >> + memcpy(t, &blank, sizeof(*t)); >>> > >>> > Is >>> > *t = blank; >>> > >>> > not a thing in C? >> >> It would be fine to use struct assignment here, and should be equivalent >> in most compilers. They know about memcpy() and will inline it as >> appropriate. > > FWIW, I'd be fine with structure assignment, but we already have too > many such memcpy(<ptr>, &<struct>, sizeof(struct)), adding one more > is not giving us too much incremental burden for later clean-up. > >> I think some C programmers tend to prefer memcpy() just because that's >> how they think. It also wasn't legal in old K&R compilers, but as far as >> I know was in C89. > > I think so, too. Getting back to the topic of this v2 in general, my reading of the discussion since then is that nothing in it necessitated a v3 re-roll to address outstanding issues. If I've got that wrong please shout...
