On Montag, 14. Juli 2008, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Johannes Sixt wrote:
> > Zitat von Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx>:
> > > On Sun, 13 Jul 2008, Johannes Sixt wrote:
> > > > @@ -84,7 +90,7 @@ static void add_path(struct strbuf *out, const char
> > > > *path)
> > > > }
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > -void setup_path(const char *cmd_path)
> > > > +void setup_path(void)
> > >
> > > It seems to me that this patch would not do anything different, but
> > > with less code change, if setup_path() would set argv0_path, and not a
> > > new function was introduced.
> >
> > This is just to play a safe game. I had it that way, but I decided to
> > have the call to the new git_set_argv0_path() early in git.c because the
> > call to setup_path() in git.c is very late, and it could happen that we
> > call system_path() (which needs argv0_path) before that. Although I
> > didn't audit the code whether this really happens.
>
> Well, okay... I would have rather seen it not change (since there was no
> bug to fix), or as a separate patch, but it's Junio's call.
I investigated this, and, yes, there indeed are calls to system_path() before
setup_path(), for example:
commit_pager_choice
setup_pager
git_config
git_etc_gitconfig
system_path(ETC_GITCONFIG)
Junio, do you want git_set_argv0_path() in a separate patch?
-- Hannes
--
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
