Return-Path: <bremner@unb.ca>
X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0608C429E3E
	for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Fri,  6 Jan 2012 03:57:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.3
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=unavailable
Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1])
	by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id cY2Kv1YMQxcu for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;
	Fri,  6 Jan 2012 03:57:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tempo.its.unb.ca (tempo.its.unb.ca [131.202.1.21])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B89E3429E33
	for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Fri,  6 Jan 2012 03:57:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zancas.localnet
	(fctnnbsc36w-156034072155.pppoe-dynamic.High-Speed.nb.bellaliant.net
	[156.34.72.155]) (authenticated bits=0)
	by tempo.its.unb.ca (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q06Bvg4i030789
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);
	Fri, 6 Jan 2012 07:57:43 -0400
Received: from bremner by zancas.localnet with local (Exim 4.77)
	(envelope-from <bremner@unb.ca>)
	id 1Rj8QY-0007KB-2l; Fri, 06 Jan 2012 07:57:42 -0400
From: David Bremner <david@tethera.net>
To: Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] cli: fix use of uninitialized variable in "notmuch
	reply"
In-Reply-To: <87ipkp8d35.fsf@nikula.org>
References: <cover.1325794371.git.jani@nikula.org>
	<974a2ef1f1df7d93e0b5bd642ca8a49f8b727a86.1325794371.git.jani@nikula.org>
	<87boqhy0p1.fsf@zancas.localnet> <87ipkp8d35.fsf@nikula.org>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.10.2+167~gadf1058 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1
	(x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 07:57:41 -0400
Message-ID: <8762gpxcui.fsf@zancas.localnet>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."
	<notmuch.notmuchmail.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,
	<mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch>
List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,
	<mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 11:57:49 -0000

On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 10:11:42 +0200, Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org> wrote:

> IMHO the first is cleanest and unaffected by changes in
> notmuch_show_params_t, though might be surprising if you're not (yet)
> used to C99 designated initializers.

Obviously not ;). It would nice to have a consensus about the use of C99
features in the notmuch code. Personally I think it's fine, but I know
we have had some back and forth about e.g. mid-block variable declarations.

> In any case, in the current implementation only .part and .cryptoctx are
> initialized, and the rest of the fields are random. This needs to be
> fixed one way or another.

Agreed.

d