Pieter de Bie <pdebie@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> +static void export_marks(char *file)
> +{
> + unsigned int i;
> + uint32_t mark;
> + struct object_decoration *deco = idnums.hash;
> + FILE *f;
> +
> + f = fopen(file, "w");
> + if (!f)
> + error("Unable to open marks file %s for writing", file);
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < idnums.size; ++i) {
> + deco++;
> ...
> + mark = (uint32_t *)deco->decoration - (uint32_t *)NULL;
> + fprintf(f, ":%u %s\n", mark,
> + sha1_to_hex(deco->base->sha1));
> ...
> +}
> +
> +static void import_marks(char * input_file)
> ...
> + add_decoration(&idnums, object, ((uint32_t *)NULL) + mark);
I am confused.
The type of object_decoration.decorattion is a (void*). Why isn't it
sufficient to do it in a naïve and straightforward way?
mark = (uint32_t)(deco->decoration);
add_decoration(&idnums, object, (void*) mark);
Is this twisted pointer arithmetic done in order to avoid cast between int
and pointer of different size in the code? Even if that is the case,
doesn't "(uint32_t *)deco->decoration - (uint32_t *)NULL" mean the value
range for deco->decoration is one-fourth of U32? What are you gaining
from using "uint32_t *" instead of some other pointer types, say "char *"?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
