On Dec 10, 2021, at 5:51 PM, Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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. :(
Ted, thoughts on this?
Cheers, Andreas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
