On Thu, Dec 09, 2021 at 02:55:26PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Dec 8, 2021, at 9:42 AM, Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 08, 2021 at 12:51:12AM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> >> It isn't totally clear when searching the code for PROMPT_*
> >> constants from problem codes where these messages come from.
> >> Similarly, there isn't a direct mapping from the prompt string
> >> to the constant.
> >>
> >> Add comments that make this mapping more clear.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Andreas Dilger <adilger@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> e2fsck/problem.c | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
> >> 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/e2fsck/problem.c b/e2fsck/problem.c
> >> index 757b5d56..2d02468c 100644
> >> --- a/e2fsck/problem.c
> >> +++ b/e2fsck/problem.c
> >> @@ -50,29 +50,29 @@
> >> * to fix a problem.
> >> */
> >> static const char *prompt[] = {
> >> - N_("(no prompt)"), /* 0 */
> >> - N_("Fix"), /* 1 */
> >> - N_("Clear"), /* 2 */
> >> - N_("Relocate"), /* 3 */
> >> - N_("Allocate"), /* 4 */
> >> - N_("Expand"), /* 5 */
> >> - N_("Connect to /lost+found"), /* 6 */
> >> - N_("Create"), /* 7 */
> >> - N_("Salvage"), /* 8 */
> >> - N_("Truncate"), /* 9 */
> >> - N_("Clear inode"), /* 10 */
> >> - N_("Abort"), /* 11 */
> >> - N_("Split"), /* 12 */
> >> - N_("Continue"), /* 13 */
> >> - N_("Clone multiply-claimed blocks"), /* 14 */
> >> - N_("Delete file"), /* 15 */
> >> - N_("Suppress messages"),/* 16 */
> >> - N_("Unlink"), /* 17 */
> >> - N_("Clear HTree index"),/* 18 */
> >> - N_("Recreate"), /* 19 */
> >> - N_("Optimize"), /* 20 */
> >> - N_("Clear flag"), /* 21 */
> >> - "", /* 22 */
> >> + N_("(no prompt)"), /* PROMPT_NONE = 0 */
> >
> > Why not make it even clearer and mismerge proof:
> >
> > static const char *prompt[] = {
> > [0] = N_("(no prompt")), /* null value test */
> > [PROMPT_FIX] = N_("Fix"), /* 1 */
> > [PROMPT_CLEAR] = N_("Clear"), /* 2 */
> > ...
> > };
>
> I thought about that too, but then I thought the "[index] = foo" designated
> initializer is GNU or at least C99-specific, and I wondered if that was
> going to cause portability problems for some ancient system that e2fsprogs
> is building on... I figured adding comments is relatively safe, and these
> values change so rarely that more complexity in the patch was not a win.
<shrug> Yeah, I thought it was safe enough to use -std=gnu90 features,
but I guess it's really up to Ted to decide if he'd prefer a structural
fix or not. Evidently this syntax is /still/ being argued in the C++
committees, which ... yay. :(
--D
> Cheers, Andreas
>
>
>
>
>
