git-compat-util.h: drop the PRIuMAX definition
#473
Closed
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Looks good, but I would like to see the commit message improved:
I.e. |
Git's code base already seems to be using `PRIdMAX` without any such fallback definition for quite a while (7545941 (json_writer: new routines to create JSON data, 2018-07-13), to be precise, and the first Git version to include that commit was v2.19.0). Therefore it should be safe to drop the fallback definition for `PRIuMAX` in `git-compat-util.h`. This addresses gitgitgadget#399 Signed-off-by: Hariom Verma <[email protected]>
harry-hov
changed the title
PRIuMAX guard from git-compat-util.hPRIuMAX definition
|
Thanks @dscho |
|
/submit |
|
Submitted as [email protected] |
![gitgitgadget[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/12836?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
| @@ -320,10 +320,6 @@ char *gitdirname(char *); | |||
| #define PATH_MAX 4096 | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On the Git mailing list, Jeff King wrote (reply to this):
On Sun, Nov 24, 2019 at 01:09:23PM +0000, Hariom Verma via GitGitGadget wrote:
> From: Hariom Verma <[email protected]>
>
> Git's code base already seems to be using `PRIdMAX` without any such
> fallback definition for quite a while (75459410edd (json_writer: new
> routines to create JSON data, 2018-07-13), to be precise, and the
> first Git version to include that commit was v2.19.0).
>
> Therefore it should be safe to drop the fallback definition for
> `PRIuMAX` in `git-compat-util.h`.
I noticed this recently, too, and wondered if it was time for a cleanup.
We do sometimes get portability reports more than a year after the
problem was introduced. But I think this one is pretty safe. PRIuMAX is
in C99, and we've been picking up other C99-isms without complaint.
I was curious what system originally spurred this. The PRIuMAX
definition was originally added in 3efb1f343a (Check for PRIuMAX rather
than NO_C99_FORMAT in fast-import.c., 2007-02-20). But it was replacing
a construct that was introduced in 579d1fbfaf (Add NO_C99_FORMAT to
support older compilers., 2006-07-30), which talks about gcc 2.95.
That's pretty ancient at this point.
> diff --git a/git-compat-util.h b/git-compat-util.h
> index 607dca7534..ba710cfa6c 100644
> --- a/git-compat-util.h
> +++ b/git-compat-util.h
> @@ -320,10 +320,6 @@ char *gitdirname(char *);
> #define PATH_MAX 4096
> #endif
>
> -#ifndef PRIuMAX
> -#define PRIuMAX "llu"
> -#endif
> -
This part of the patch looks obviously correct. :) But...
> #ifndef SCNuMAX
> #define SCNuMAX PRIuMAX
> #endif
Can we likewise ditch the fallback definition for SCNuMAX? And PRIu32,
etc? It seems likely any platform would either have all of them or none.
-Peff
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On the Git mailing list, Carlo Arenas wrote (reply to this):
On Sun, Nov 24, 2019 at 9:11 AM Jeff King <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> We do sometimes get portability reports more than a year after the
> problem was introduced. But I think this one is pretty safe. PRIuMAX is
> in C99, and we've been picking up other C99-isms without complaint.
I think the problem might come from places where the default compiler
is still not C99 by default (ex: old CentOS) and any other places
using gcc < 5 which is less ancient
Carlo
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On the Git mailing list, Carlo Arenas wrote (reply to this):
On Sun, Nov 24, 2019 at 9:40 AM Carlo Arenas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I think the problem might come from places where the default compiler
> is still not C99 by default (ex: old CentOS)
CentOS 6.10 (using gcc 4.4.7) compiles this without problems by
default so nothing to worry about, sorry for the red herring
Carlo
PS. non GNU89 (AKA ANSI) mode will obviously break but not ONLY
because of this change
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On the Git mailing list, Junio C Hamano wrote (reply to this):
Jeff King <[email protected]> writes:
> On Sun, Nov 24, 2019 at 01:09:23PM +0000, Hariom Verma via GitGitGadget wrote:
>
>> From: Hariom Verma <[email protected]>
>>
>> Git's code base already seems to be using `PRIdMAX` without any such
>> fallback definition for quite a while (75459410edd (json_writer: new
>> routines to create JSON data, 2018-07-13), to be precise, and the
>> first Git version to include that commit was v2.19.0).
>>
>> Therefore it should be safe to drop the fallback definition for
>> `PRIuMAX` in `git-compat-util.h`.
>
> I noticed this recently, too, and wondered if it was time for a cleanup.
While I agree with the conclusion, I do not think I agree with the
above "Therefore (implying that the lack of need for fallback
PRIdMAX means the same for PRIuMAX) it should be safe" as a good
justification. That reasoning assumes that the outside world is
much saner than us. We thought PRIuMAX fallback necessary while a
counterpart for PRIdMAX unneeded---the outside world could have made
a similar mistake and in the opposite way (i.e. only defined PRIdMAX
while leaving PRIuMAX undefined).
But I do agree with the alternative justification in the following
two paragraphs you have given, which are ...
> We do sometimes get portability reports more than a year after the
> problem was introduced. But I think this one is pretty safe. PRIuMAX is
> in C99, and we've been picking up other C99-isms without complaint.
>
> I was curious what system originally spurred this. The PRIuMAX
> definition was originally added in 3efb1f343a (Check for PRIuMAX rather
> than NO_C99_FORMAT in fast-import.c., 2007-02-20). But it was replacing
> a construct that was introduced in 579d1fbfaf (Add NO_C99_FORMAT to
> support older compilers., 2006-07-30), which talks about gcc 2.95.
> That's pretty ancient at this point.
... these.
> This part of the patch looks obviously correct. :) But...
>
>> #ifndef SCNuMAX
>> #define SCNuMAX PRIuMAX
>> #endif
>
> Can we likewise ditch the fallback definition for SCNuMAX? And PRIu32,
> etc? It seems likely any platform would either have all of them or none.
I guess that's also a C99-ism that we can use?
Thanks, both.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On the Git mailing list, Junio C Hamano wrote (reply to this):
Junio C Hamano <[email protected]> writes:
>> Can we likewise ditch the fallback definition for SCNuMAX? And PRIu32,
>> etc? It seems likely any platform would either have all of them or none.
>
> I guess that's also a C99-ism that we can use?
>
> Thanks, both.
Here is what I have locally for now.
1: 98f866a929 ! 1: ebc3278665 git-compat-util.h: drop the `PRIuMAX` definition
@@ Metadata
Author: Hariom Verma <[email protected]>
## Commit message ##
- git-compat-util.h: drop the `PRIuMAX` definition
+ git-compat-util.h: drop the `PRIuMAX` and other fallback definitions
Git's code base already seems to be using `PRIdMAX` without any such
fallback definition for quite a while (75459410edd (json_writer: new
routines to create JSON data, 2018-07-13), to be precise, and the
- first Git version to include that commit was v2.19.0).
+ first Git version to include that commit was v2.19.0). Having a
+ fallback definition only for `PRIuMAX` is a bit inconsistent.
- Therefore it should be safe to drop the fallback definition for
- `PRIuMAX` in `git-compat-util.h`.
+ We do sometimes get portability reports more than a year after the
+ problem was introduced. This one should be fairly safe. PRIuMAX is
+ in C99 (for that matter, SCNuMAX, PRIu32 and others also are), and
+ we've been picking up other C99-isms without complaint.
- This addresses https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/issues/399
+ The PRIuMAX fallback definition was originally added in 3efb1f343a
+ (Check for PRIuMAX rather than NO_C99_FORMAT in fast-import.c.,
+ 2007-02-20). But it was replacing a construct that was introduced in
+ an even earlier commit, 579d1fbfaf (Add NO_C99_FORMAT to support
+ older compilers., 2006-07-30), which talks about gcc 2.95.
+
+ That's pretty ancient at this point.
Signed-off-by: Hariom Verma <[email protected]>
+ Helped-by: Jeff King <[email protected]>
+ [jc: tweaked both message and code, taking what peff wrote]
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <[email protected]>
## git-compat-util.h ##
@@ git-compat-util.h: char *gitdirname(char *);
-#define PRIuMAX "llu"
-#endif
-
- #ifndef SCNuMAX
- #define SCNuMAX PRIuMAX
- #endif
+-#ifndef SCNuMAX
+-#define SCNuMAX PRIuMAX
+-#endif
+-
+-#ifndef PRIu32
+-#define PRIu32 "u"
+-#endif
+-
+-#ifndef PRIx32
+-#define PRIx32 "x"
+-#endif
+-
+-#ifndef PRIo32
+-#define PRIo32 "o"
+-#endif
+-
+ typedef uintmax_t timestamp_t;
+ #define PRItime PRIuMAX
+ #define parse_timestamp strtoumax
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On the Git mailing list, Jeff King wrote (reply to this):
On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 11:45:29AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Junio C Hamano <[email protected]> writes:
>
> >> Can we likewise ditch the fallback definition for SCNuMAX? And PRIu32,
> >> etc? It seems likely any platform would either have all of them or none.
> >
> > I guess that's also a C99-ism that we can use?
> >
> > Thanks, both.
>
> Here is what I have locally for now.
Yes, that looks good to me (and yes, those other format macros are in
C99, too).
-Peff
Umm. I will try to remember that you flat out ignore my suggestions and |
Oh, but you didn't, even if your answer sounded as if you had. I would have expected a reply more like "Thank you, I used that commit message with minor edits" than "I'll do better next time."... |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Git's code base already seems to be using
PRIdMAXwithout any such fallbackdefinition for quite a while (7545941 (json_writer: new routines to create
JSON data, 2018-07-13), to be precise, and the first Git version to include
that commit was v2.19.0).
Therefore it should be safe to drop the fallback definition for
PRIuMAXingit-compat-util.h.This addresses #399