On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 09:25:56AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > if (check_refname_format(iter->basename, REFNAME_ALLOW_ONELEVEL)) {
> > - struct fsck_ref_report report = { .path = NULL };
> > + struct fsck_ref_report report = FSCK_REF_REPORT_DEFAULT;
>
> ... the code without this patch is already doing so.
>
> When designated initializers are used to initialize a struct, all
> members that are not initialized explicitly are implicitly
> initialized the same as for objects that have static storage
> duration (meaning: pointers are initialized to NULL, arithmetics are
> initialized to zero).
>
> So I do not quite see why this change is needed. By hiding the fact
> that the "report" structure is zero-initialized behind the macro, it
> makes it less obvious that we are clearing everything.
>
> If the patch were to rewrite the above like so:
>
> struct fsck_ref_report report = { 0 }
>
> it would make it even more clear that everything is zero
> initialized, and also makes it obvious that .path member is not any
> special.
>
Yes, I should use this way. Thanks.
> Thanks.
