Re: [PATCH 5/5] cbtree.h: define cb_init() in terms of CBTREE_INIT

Am 28.09.21 um 01:54 schrieb Jeff King:

On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 01:02:35PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

 static inline void cb_init(struct cb_tree *t)
 {
-	t->root = NULL;
+	struct cb_tree blank = CBTREE_INIT;

This could be

	static const struct cb_tree blank = CBTREE_INIT;

*nod*...
[...]
...but to both this & the above my reply in the side-thread at
https://lore.kernel.org/git/87h7e61duk.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com/ (local)
applies. I.e. this is just following a pattern I got from Jeff King &
used in bd4232fac33 (Merge branch 'ab/struct-init', 2021-07-16).

I'm not sure how a compiler would react to the "static const" thing. I
tested the compiler output for the "auto" struct case you've written
here, and at least gcc and clang are smart enough to just initialize the
pointed-to struct directly, with no extra copy.

Good! Then a deviation from established patterns is not warranted.

-- Hannes