On Wed, Nov 30 2022, Phillip Wood wrote:
> On 30/11/2022 09:53, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 29 2022, Glen Choo wrote:
>>
>>> Calvin Wan <calvinwan@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>> So this might be more idiomatically written as:
>>>
>>> int n = strbuf_read_once(&pp->children[i].err,
>>> pp->children[i].process.err, 0);
>>> + if (opts->duplicate_output) {
>>> + struct strbuf buf = STRBUF_INIT;
>>> + strbuf_addbuf(&buf, &pp->children[i].err);
>>> + opts->duplicate_output(&buf, &pp->children[i].err,
>>> + opts->data,
>>> + pp->children[i].data);
>>> + strbuf_release(&buf);
>>> + }
>>>
>>> which also has the nice benefit of not touching the strbuf_read_once()
>>> line.
>> We should also use "size_t n" there, not "int n", which is what it
>> returns.
>
> It returns an ssize_t not size_t, lower down we test `n < 0` so we
> certainly should not be using an unsigned type.
Good catch, I just skimmed it and missed the extra "s". In any case:
let's use the type it's returning, so ssize_t, not int.
(DEVOPTS=extra-all etc. will also catch this, depending on your compiler
etc.)
