[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:       Pierre Habouzit <madcoder () debian ! org>
Date:       2010-07-08 10:18:48
Message-ID: 20100708101848.GA12789 () madism ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 09:26:23AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> 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.

Well, the sole difference is that it makes &stop_at_non_option been
computed at compile time instead of runtime, which is pretty much the
same. cmd_parseopt isn't meant to be reentrant so it's not important.
-- 
 ·O ·  Pierre Habouzit
 · ·O                                                madcoder@debian.org
OOO                                                http://www.madism.org
--
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]