Re: [PATCH 1/5] progress.c: replace signal() with sigaction()

Erik Faye-Lund [off-list ref] writes:

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:19 AM, David Kastrup [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Chris Packham [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

On 28/05/14 18:14, Jeremiah Mahler wrote:

quoted

 static void clear_progress_signal(void)
 {
     struct itimerval v = {{0,},};
+    struct sigaction sa;
+
+    memset(&sa, 0, sizeof(sa));
+    sa.sa_handler = SIG_IGN;

A C99 initialiser here would save the call to memset. Unfortunately
Documentation/CodingGuidelines is fairly clear on not using C99
initialisers, given the fact we're now at git 2.0 maybe it's time to
revisit this policy?

If I look at the initialization of v in the context immediately above
the new code, it would appear that somebody already revisited this
policy.

Huh, the initialization of v doesn't use C99-features...?

Well, for me anything post-K&R apparently is C99.

Cf
<URL:http://computer-programming-forum.com/47-c-language/859a1b6693a0ddc5.htm>

I have to admit that gcc -c -ansi -std=c89 -pedantic does not complain,
so that makes it quite probable that I was erring somewhat on the side
of the ancient ones and zeros.

-- 
David Kastrup