Re: [PATCH 3/5] ref-filter.c: add trailer options to used_atom
From: Jeff King <hidden>
Date: 2017-09-30 07:11:04
On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 11:22:36PM -0700, Taylor Blau wrote:
In preparation for "%(trailers)" to take trailer parsing arguments, use Jeff's convenience structure for trailer processing options introduced in 8abc89800c. We will later populate this field from the arguments given to %(trailers), and then use the trailer_opts instance to format ref trailers correctly using `format_trailer_from_commit`.
I think this should probably just be squashed in with the next patch, since this does nothing at all without adding a caller that uses it.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/ref-filter.c b/ref-filter.c index 467c0279c..84f14093c 100644 --- a/ref-filter.c +++ b/ref-filter.c@@ -82,6 +82,7 @@ static struct used_atom { } remote_ref; struct { enum { C_BARE, C_BODY, C_BODY_DEP, C_LINES, C_SIG, C_SUB, C_TRAILERS } option; + struct process_trailer_options trailer_opts; unsigned int nlines; } contents;
This contents struct is odd. The used_atom struct can have many types, and has has a big union of type-specific data. And then we break down the "contents" type with a further enum, but don't actually put the type-specific data into a union (not just your patch, but already "nlines" is specific only to C_LINES). It's probably not worth caring about, though. The point of a union is to reduce the overall struct size, and here our type-specific data is fairly small. It would only change the overall struct size if it were larger than other parts of the union (and remote_ref, for example, is pretty big). -Peff PS As an aside, I find the whole %(contents:...) thing a bit unfortunate. I understand why the _implementation_ wants to group similar options together so that it can avoid parsing too much. But the user doesn't care about that. Just "%(trailers)" should be sufficient (as evidenced by the fact that we added it a separate alias). But none of that is new to your series.