Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > 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... I was hoping that these can hit 'next' soonish.
