Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > On Wed, Jul 06, 2022 at 07:02:18PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> * Should we in general use sizeof(TYPE) in these cases, instead >> of the size of the zeroth element, e.g. >> >> memmove(source + i, source + i + 1, >> n * sizeof(source[i])); >> >> It would have been caught by the above Coccinelle rule (we are >> taking the size of *dst). > > I'm not sure I understand this. As you noted in a later email, using > sizeof(TYPE) is less maintainable if the type of "source" changes. Sorry for a typo or thinko, whichever one you like ;-) > But > later you mention using "*source" instead of "source[i]". I don't think > there is a particular reason to prefer one over the other from the > compiler perspective. I find "*source" more idiomatic (but better still > of course is MOVE_ARRAY, which removes the choice entirely). Yes, I wrote source[i] there only because I found it somewhat awkward to write source[0] or *source there, when the moved (sub)array is from the index 'i' to the end. *(source + i) would have matched the intention better but it still is awkward.
