On 12/03/2018 01:24 PM, Jeff King wrote:
@@ -297,7 +296,8 @@ struct setup_revision_opt {
const char *def;
void (*tweak)(struct rev_info *, struct setup_revision_opt *);
const char *submodule; /* TODO: drop this and use rev_info->repo */
- int assume_dashdash;
+ int assume_dashdash : 1;
+ int allow_exclude_promisor_objects : 1;
unsigned revarg_opt;
};
I don't know that we need to penny-pinch bytes in this struct, but in
general it shouldn't hurt either awy. However, a signed bit-field with 1
bit is funny. I'm not even sure what the standard has to say, but in
twos-complement that would store "-1" and "0" (gcc -Wpedantic also
complains about overflow in assigning "1" to it).
Interesting. I hadn't suspected this. But I confirmed it with this:
#include <stdio.h>
struct x {
int y : 1;
int z : 1;
};
int main() {
struct x x;
x.y = 1;
x.z = 1;
printf("%d %d\n", (int) x.y, (int) x.z);
return 0;
}
-- Output --
-1 -1
So this probably ought to be "unsigned".
Earlier in this file we define bit fields this way:
/* Traversal flags */
unsigned int dense:1,
prune:1,
... using \t to align the field names, so I'll mimic that style.
