[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       git
Subject:    Re: [PATCH] rev-parse: fix --parse-opt --keep-dashdash
From:       Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?=
Date:       2010-07-08 7:26:23
Message-ID: 20100708072623.GC21565 () pengutronix ! de
[Download RAW message or body]

On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 02:41:33PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Uwe Kleine-König  <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> writes:
> 
> > The ?: operator has a lower priority than |, so the implicit associativity
> > made the 6th argument of parse_options be PARSE_OPT_KEEP_DASHDASH if
> > keep_dashdash was true discarding PARSE_OPT_STOP_AT_NON_OPTION and
> > PARSE_OPT_SHELL_EVAL.
> 
> Wow, this is an age-old breakage dating back to 6e0800e (parse-opt: make
> PARSE_OPT_STOP_AT_NON_OPTION available to git rev-parse, 2009-06-14) that
> dates back to the very original --stop-at-non-option patch, isn't it?
I made a quick C-quiz at my company asking what's wrong with 6e0800e.

Apart from the bug fixed in my patch a colleague wondered about
stop_at_non_option being static.  I think it doesn't do any harm, still
I think being an automatic variable would be more common.  Is the static
intended here?  This was introduced in
21d4783538662143ef52ed6967c948ab27586232, so I cc:d Pierre.

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]