On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 05:04:04PM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> This pattern added [1] in seems to have been intentional, but since
> [2] and [3] we've wanted do initialization of what's now the "struct
> strvec" "args" and "env_array" members. Let's not trample on that
> initialization here.
Yes, I came across this one, too, while looking at the same topic. I
think this is a good change, but:
> int cmd_upload_archive(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> {
> - struct child_process writer = { argv };
> + struct child_process writer = CHILD_PROCESS_INIT;
>
> if (argc == 2 && !strcmp(argv[1], "-h"))
> usage(upload_archive_usage);
> @@ -92,6 +92,9 @@ int cmd_upload_archive(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> argv[0] = "upload-archive--writer";
You can drop this assignment over argv[0] now.
> writer.out = writer.err = -1;
> writer.git_cmd = 1;
> + strvec_push(&writer.args, "upload-archive--writer");
> + if (argc > 1)
> + strvec_pushv(&writer.args, &argv[1]);
The "argc > 1" isn't necessary. If it is not true, strvec_pushv() will
see the terminating NULL in the list and just become a noop.
(I'd also spell it "argv + 1" to make it more obvious that we are
interested in the list and not a single element, but that may be a
matter of taste).
-Peff
