Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belón <carenas@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 10:00:25AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> >> > struct strbuf *counters_sb = &progress->counters_sb; >> > int show_update = 0; >> > + sig_atomic_t update = progress_update; >> >> It is somewhat misleading to use sig_atomic_t for "update", which is >> never updated via the signal handler. It confused me a bit during >> my initial reading. If it were >> >> int update = !!progress_update; >> >> it would have made it more obvious what is going on, at least to me. > > In that case, I would suggest doing instead: > > bool update = !!progress_update; Any conventional type we would use for "is it set or not?" that is not sig_atomic_t is good enough in this context. The fact that we started adopting "bool" in new code is orthogonal and a bit off the point.
