Web lists-archives.com

Re: [PATCH] builtin/config: work around an unsized array forward declaration

Hi Peff

On 05.07.18 21:38, Jeff King wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 05, 2018 at 08:34:45PM +0200, Beat Bolli wrote:
>> As reported here[0], Microsoft Visual Studio 2017.2 and "gcc -pedantic"
>> don't understand the forward declaration of an unsized static array.
>> They insist on an array size:
>>     d:\git\src\builtin\config.c(70,46): error C2133: 'builtin_config_options': unknown size
>> The thread [1] explains that this is due to the single-pass nature of
>> old compilers.
> Right, that makes sense.
>> To work around this error, introduce the forward-declared function
>> usage_builtin_config() instead that uses the array
>> builtin_config_options only after it has been defined.
>> Also use this function in all other places where usage_with_options() is
>> called with the same arguments.
> Your patch is obviously correct, but I think here there might be an even
> simpler solution: just bump option_parse_type() below the declaration,
> since it's the only one that needs it. That hunk is bigger, but the
> overall diff is simpler, and we don't need to carry that extra wrapper
> function.

That was dscho's first try in the GitHub issue. It doesn't compile
because the OPT_CALLBACK* macros in the builtin_config_options
declaration inserts a pointer to option_parse_type into the array items.
We need at least one forward declaration, and my patch seemed the least

> As a general rule for this case (because reordering isn't always an
> option), I also wonder if we should prefer just introducing a pointer
> alias:
>   /* forward declaration is a pointer */
>   static struct option *builtin_config_options;
>   /* later, declare the actual storage and its alias */
>   static struct option builtin_config_options_storage[] = {
> 	...
>   };
>   static struct option *builtin_config_options = builtin_config_options_storage;
> There are occasionally cases where the caller really wants an array and
> not a pointer, but in practice those are pretty rare.
> I have a slight preference for the reordering solution in this case, but
> any of them would be OK with me.
> -Peff 

Regards, Beat