On 2023-06-27 at 07:05:57, Jeff King wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 07:00:07PM +0000, brian m. carlson wrote:
>
> > @@ -51,6 +52,26 @@ static char *shell_path(int flag)
> > return xstrdup(SHELL_PATH);
> > }
> >
> > +static char *git_attr_val_system(int flag)
> > +{
> > + if (git_attr_system_is_enabled()) {
> > + char *file = xstrdup(git_attr_system_file());
> > + normalize_path_copy(file, file);
> > + return file;
> > + }
> > + return NULL;
> > +}
>
> These new ones would ideally mark the "flag" variable with the UNUSED
> attribute (in preparation for building with -Wunused-parameter).
>
> I can also come through later and fix them up in a separate patch. It's
> slightly awkward, just because I was about to post a patch that fixed
> the existing functions in that file, and I'd have to either rebase on
> top, or make a second pass once this is merged.
>
> That said, I also renamed the "flag" variable in my patch because it's
> super confusing (see my patch below for reference). So adjusting your
> new callers to match (without my changes) would be a little weird. The
> least-weird thing would be sticking my patch at the front of your
> series, but I don't want to make you do extra work.
>
> So I dunno. I'm mostly giving a heads-up, and seeing if you (or other
> reviewers in the thread) have an idea to make this "flag" thing less
> awful. I'm also happy to just do my topic separately, and then
> eventually circle back after yours is merged.
I've picked up your patch as the first patch in the series and will send
it out in v3 in just a few minutes. Since I plan to have v3 be the last
round of this series, I'll let you send out any further changes as
fixups on top of that.
--
brian m. carlson (he/him or they/them)
Toronto, Ontario, CA
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
