[PATCH 0/4] ci: fix windows-build with GCC v12.x

[PATCH 0/4] ci: fix windows-build with GCC v12.x

[Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget]

A recent update of GCC in Git for Windows' SDK (a subset of which is used in
Git's CI/PR builds) broke the build.

These patches address that, and they are based on maint-2.34 (earlier
maintenance tracks would have a trivial merge conflict due to 013c7e2b070
(http: drop support for curl < 7.16.0, 2021-07-30) removing support for
USE_CURL_MULTI).

Johannes Schindelin (4):
  compat/win32/syslog: fix use-after-realloc
  nedmalloc: avoid new compile error
  http.c: avoid danging pointer to local variable `finished`
  dir.c: avoid "exceeds maximum object size" error with GCC v12.x

 compat/nedmalloc/nedmalloc.c |  1 -
 compat/win32/syslog.c        |  2 ++
 dir.c                        |  9 +++++++++
 http-walker.c                |  4 ----
 http.c                       | 15 +++++++--------
 http.h                       |  2 +-
 6 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)


base-commit: 2f0dde7852b7866bb044926f73334ff3fc30654b
Published-As: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/releases/tag/pr-1238%2Fdscho%2Ffix-win-build-with-gcc-12-v1
Fetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git pr-1238/dscho/fix-win-build-with-gcc-12-v1
Pull-Request: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/1238
-- 
gitgitgadget

[PATCH 1/4] compat/win32/syslog: fix use-after-realloc

[Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget]

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>

Git for Windows' SDK recently upgraded to GCC v12.x which points out
that the `pos` variable might be used even after the corresponding
memory was `realloc()`ed and therefore potentially no longer valid.

Since a subset of this SDK is used in Git's CI/PR builds, we need to fix
this to continue to be able to benefit from the CI/PR runs.

Note: This bug has been with us since 2a6b149c64f6 (mingw: avoid using
strbuf in syslog, 2011-10-06), and while it looks tempting to replace
the hand-rolled string manipulation with a `strbuf`-based one, that
commit's message explains why we cannot do that: The `syslog()` function
is called as part of the function in `daemon.c` which is set as the
`die()` routine, and since `strbuf_grow()` can call that function if it
runs out of memory, this would cause a nasty infinite loop that we do
not want to re-introduce.

Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
---
 compat/win32/syslog.c | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/compat/win32/syslog.c b/compat/win32/syslog.c
index 161978d720a..1f8d8934cc9 100644
--- a/compat/win32/syslog.c
+++ b/compat/win32/syslog.c
@@ -43,6 +43,7 @@ void syslog(int priority, const char *fmt, ...)
 	va_end(ap);
 
 	while ((pos = strstr(str, "%1")) != NULL) {
+		size_t offset = pos - str;
 		char *oldstr = str;
 		str = realloc(str, st_add(++str_len, 1));
 		if (!str) {
@@ -50,6 +51,7 @@ void syslog(int priority, const char *fmt, ...)
 			warning_errno("realloc failed");
 			return;
 		}
+		pos = str + offset;
 		memmove(pos + 2, pos + 1, strlen(pos));
 		pos[1] = ' ';
 	}
-- 
gitgitgadget

Re: [PATCH 1/4] compat/win32/syslog: fix use-after-realloc

[Johannes Schindelin]

Hi,

On Tue, 24 May 2022, Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget wrote:

> diff --git a/compat/win32/syslog.c b/compat/win32/syslog.c
> index 161978d720a..1f8d8934cc9 100644
> --- a/compat/win32/syslog.c
> +++ b/compat/win32/syslog.c
> @@ -43,6 +43,7 @@ void syslog(int priority, const char *fmt, ...)
>  	va_end(ap);
>
>  	while ((pos = strstr(str, "%1")) != NULL) {
> +		size_t offset = pos - str;
>  		char *oldstr = str;
>  		str = realloc(str, st_add(++str_len, 1));

Since it has been raised elsewhere: Why is that `++str_len` not turned
into an `st_add()`?

The commit adding that `st_add()` call (50a6c8efa2b (use st_add and
st_mult for allocation size computation, 2016-02-22)) does not really talk
about it, but the explanation is simple:

Before this `while()` loop, we allocate one more than `str_len` (see
compat/win32/syslog.c#L35), and we do that already using `st_add()`, so
that the string and the terminating NUL fit into the allocated memory.

Therefore, the first time we enter the loop, we know that `++str_len` is
safe.

Now, in this very line, we then increment `str_len` and then `reallocate`
one more than that, again guarding it via `st_add()`. So every subsequent
iteration will already have checked that `++str_len` is safe, too.

By induction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_induction), it
follows that this line is safe, and we do not have to change it to a
clunkier two-step assignment where we first use `st_add()` to increment
`str_len` and then use `st_add()` to allocate enough memory to also fit
the trailing NUL.

Now you know,
Dscho

>  		if (!str) {
> @@ -50,6 +51,7 @@ void syslog(int priority, const char *fmt, ...)
>  			warning_errno("realloc failed");
>  			return;
>  		}
> +		pos = str + offset;
>  		memmove(pos + 2, pos + 1, strlen(pos));
>  		pos[1] = ' ';
>  	}
> --
> gitgitgadget
>
>

Re: [PATCH 1/4] compat/win32/syslog: fix use-after-realloc

[Junio C Hamano]

Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:

>>  		str = realloc(str, st_add(++str_len, 1));
>
> Since it has been raised elsewhere: Why is that `++str_len` not turned
> into an `st_add()`?
> ...
> Now you know,

I'd be more worried about a macro looking thing evalutating its
parameters more than once, though.  But unlike st_addN(), st_add()
is an inline function so we do not have to worry about that ;-)

>> @@ -50,6 +51,7 @@ void syslog(int priority, const char *fmt, ...)
>>  			warning_errno("realloc failed");
>>  			return;
>>  		}
>> +		pos = str + offset;

The adjustment using ofs is very much straight-forward.  Nicely
spotted and nicely corrected.

Thanks.

[PATCH 2/4] nedmalloc: avoid new compile error

[Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget]

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>

GCC v12.x complains thusly:

compat/nedmalloc/nedmalloc.c: In function 'DestroyCaches':
compat/nedmalloc/nedmalloc.c:326:12: error: the comparison will always
                              evaluate as 'true' for the address of 'caches'
                              will never be NULL [-Werror=address]
  326 |         if(p->caches)
      |            ^
compat/nedmalloc/nedmalloc.c:196:22: note: 'caches' declared here
  196 |         threadcache *caches[THREADCACHEMAXCACHES];
      |                      ^~~~~~

... and it is correct, of course.

Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
---
 compat/nedmalloc/nedmalloc.c | 1 -
 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/compat/nedmalloc/nedmalloc.c b/compat/nedmalloc/nedmalloc.c
index edb438a7776..2c0ace7075a 100644
--- a/compat/nedmalloc/nedmalloc.c
+++ b/compat/nedmalloc/nedmalloc.c
@@ -323,7 +323,6 @@ static NOINLINE void RemoveCacheEntries(nedpool *p, threadcache *tc, unsigned in
 }
 static void DestroyCaches(nedpool *p) THROWSPEC
 {
-	if(p->caches)
 	{
 		threadcache *tc;
 		int n;
-- 
gitgitgadget

Re: [PATCH 2/4] nedmalloc: avoid new compile error

[Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason]

On Tue, May 24 2022, Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget wrote:

> From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
>
> GCC v12.x complains thusly:
>
> compat/nedmalloc/nedmalloc.c: In function 'DestroyCaches':
> compat/nedmalloc/nedmalloc.c:326:12: error: the comparison will always
>                               evaluate as 'true' for the address of 'caches'
>                               will never be NULL [-Werror=address]
>   326 |         if(p->caches)
>       |            ^
> compat/nedmalloc/nedmalloc.c:196:22: note: 'caches' declared here
>   196 |         threadcache *caches[THREADCACHEMAXCACHES];
>       |                      ^~~~~~
>
> ... and it is correct, of course.
>
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
> ---
>  compat/nedmalloc/nedmalloc.c | 1 -
>  1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/compat/nedmalloc/nedmalloc.c b/compat/nedmalloc/nedmalloc.c
> index edb438a7776..2c0ace7075a 100644
> --- a/compat/nedmalloc/nedmalloc.c
> +++ b/compat/nedmalloc/nedmalloc.c
> @@ -323,7 +323,6 @@ static NOINLINE void RemoveCacheEntries(nedpool *p, threadcache *tc, unsigned in
>  }
>  static void DestroyCaches(nedpool *p) THROWSPEC
>  {
> -	if(p->caches)
>  	{
>  		threadcache *tc;
>  		int n;

This seems sensible, I thought "why not submit it to upstream",
i.e. see:
https://github.com/ned14/nedmalloc/blob/master/nedmalloc.c#L1298

But that repository was last updated in 2014, I wonder if it's just
because nobody's submitted a patch since then, or if it's inactive. Have
you tried making Njall Douglas (the nedmalloc author) aware of this
issue?

Re: [PATCH 2/4] nedmalloc: avoid new compile error

[René Scharfe]

Am 24.05.22 um 10:00 schrieb Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason:
>
> This seems sensible, I thought "why not submit it to upstream",
> i.e. see:
> https://github.com/ned14/nedmalloc/blob/master/nedmalloc.c#L1298
>
> But that repository was last updated in 2014, I wonder if it's just
> because nobody's submitted a patch since then, or if it's inactive. Have
> you tried making Njall Douglas (the nedmalloc author) aware of this
> issue?
>

https://github.com/ned14/nedmalloc says at the top: "This repository has
been archived by the owner. It is now read-only.".

René

Re: [PATCH 2/4] nedmalloc: avoid new compile error

[Johannes Schindelin]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 997 bytes --]

Hi René,

On Tue, 24 May 2022, René Scharfe wrote:

> Am 24.05.22 um 10:00 schrieb Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason:
> >
> > This seems sensible, I thought "why not submit it to upstream",
> > i.e. see:
> > https://github.com/ned14/nedmalloc/blob/master/nedmalloc.c#L1298
> >
> > But that repository was last updated in 2014, I wonder if it's just
> > because nobody's submitted a patch since then, or if it's inactive. Have
> > you tried making Njall Douglas (the nedmalloc author) aware of this
> > issue?
> >
>
> https://github.com/ned14/nedmalloc says at the top: "This repository has
> been archived by the owner. It is now read-only.".

Indeed, maintenance of nedmalloc has stopped a few years ago (see e.g.
https://github.com/ned14/nedmalloc/issues/20#issuecomment-343432314).

About five years ago I tried to upgrade us to the latest nedmalloc version
but ran into a performance regression that I was unable to justify the
time to investigate further.

Ciao,
Dscho

Re: [PATCH 2/4] nedmalloc: avoid new compile error

[Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason]

On Tue, May 24 2022, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

> Hi René,
>
> On Tue, 24 May 2022, René Scharfe wrote:
>
>> Am 24.05.22 um 10:00 schrieb Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason:
>> >
>> > This seems sensible, I thought "why not submit it to upstream",
>> > i.e. see:
>> > https://github.com/ned14/nedmalloc/blob/master/nedmalloc.c#L1298
>> >
>> > But that repository was last updated in 2014, I wonder if it's just
>> > because nobody's submitted a patch since then, or if it's inactive. Have
>> > you tried making Njall Douglas (the nedmalloc author) aware of this
>> > issue?
>> >
>>
>> https://github.com/ned14/nedmalloc says at the top: "This repository has
>> been archived by the owner. It is now read-only.".
>
> Indeed, maintenance of nedmalloc has stopped a few years ago (see e.g.
> https://github.com/ned14/nedmalloc/issues/20#issuecomment-343432314).

The author says:

    nedmalloc is pretty much EOL. Happy to accept patches, but unwilling to fix.

The "Happy to accept patches" seems to suggest that they're willing to
take a PR, just not willing to do spend time on it themselves.

Anyway, I see that we've accumulated quite a few patches on top, and
given...

> About five years ago I tried to upgrade us to the latest nedmalloc version
> but ran into a performance regression that I was unable to justify the
> time to investigate further.

...perhaps it's not worth it.

Maybe someone should get to updating the readme we carry from it to
change the first line from:

    nedalloc v1.05 15th June 2008:

To:

    Git's (perma-)fork & local hacks on top of nedalloc v1.05 15th June 2008:

Or something :)

[PATCH 3/4] http.c: avoid danging pointer to local variable `finished`

[Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget]

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>

In http.c, the run_active_slot() function allows the given "slot" to
make progress by calling step_active_slots() in a loop repeatedly, and
the loop is not left until the request held in the slot completes.

Ages ago, we used to use the slot->in_use member to get out of the loop,
which misbehaved when the request in "slot" completes (at which time,
the result of the request is copied away from the slot, and the in_use
member is cleared, making the slot ready to be reused), and the "slot"
gets reused to service a different request (at which time, the "slot"
becomes in_use again, even though it is for a different request).  The
loop terminating condition mistakenly thought that the original request
has yet to be completed.

Today's code, after baa7b67d (HTTP slot reuse fixes, 2006-03-10) fixed
this issue, uses a separate "slot->finished" member that is set in
run_active_slot() to point to an on-stack variable, and the code that
completes the request in finish_active_slot() clears the on-stack
variable via the pointer to signal that the particular request held by
the slot has completed.  It also clears the in_use member (as before
that fix), so that the slot itself can safely be reused for an unrelated
request.

One thing that is not quite clean in this arrangement is that, unless
the slot gets reused, at which point the finished member is reset to
NULL, the member keeps the value of &finished, which becomes a dangling
pointer into the stack when run_active_slot() returns.

Let's drop that local variable and introduce a new flag in the slot that
is used to indicate that even while the slot is no longer in use, it is
still reserved until further notice. It is the responsibility of
`run_active_slot()` to clear that flag once it is done with that slot.

Initial-patch-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
---
 http-walker.c |  4 ----
 http.c        | 15 +++++++--------
 http.h        |  2 +-
 3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

diff --git a/http-walker.c b/http-walker.c
index 910fae539b8..5cc369dea85 100644
--- a/http-walker.c
+++ b/http-walker.c
@@ -225,13 +225,9 @@ static void process_alternates_response(void *callback_data)
 					 alt_req->url->buf);
 			active_requests++;
 			slot->in_use = 1;
-			if (slot->finished != NULL)
-				(*slot->finished) = 0;
 			if (!start_active_slot(slot)) {
 				cdata->got_alternates = -1;
 				slot->in_use = 0;
-				if (slot->finished != NULL)
-					(*slot->finished) = 1;
 			}
 			return;
 		}
diff --git a/http.c b/http.c
index f92859f43fa..00206676597 100644
--- a/http.c
+++ b/http.c
@@ -197,8 +197,7 @@ static void finish_active_slot(struct active_request_slot *slot)
 	closedown_active_slot(slot);
 	curl_easy_getinfo(slot->curl, CURLINFO_HTTP_CODE, &slot->http_code);
 
-	if (slot->finished != NULL)
-		(*slot->finished) = 1;
+	slot->in_use = 0;
 
 	/* Store slot results so they can be read after the slot is reused */
 	if (slot->results != NULL) {
@@ -1176,13 +1175,14 @@ struct active_request_slot *get_active_slot(void)
 			process_curl_messages();
 	}
 
-	while (slot != NULL && slot->in_use)
+	while (slot != NULL && (slot->in_use || slot->reserved_for_use))
 		slot = slot->next;
 
 	if (slot == NULL) {
 		newslot = xmalloc(sizeof(*newslot));
 		newslot->curl = NULL;
 		newslot->in_use = 0;
+		newslot->reserved_for_use = 0;
 		newslot->next = NULL;
 
 		slot = active_queue_head;
@@ -1204,7 +1204,6 @@ struct active_request_slot *get_active_slot(void)
 	active_requests++;
 	slot->in_use = 1;
 	slot->results = NULL;
-	slot->finished = NULL;
 	slot->callback_data = NULL;
 	slot->callback_func = NULL;
 	curl_easy_setopt(slot->curl, CURLOPT_COOKIEFILE, curl_cookie_file);
@@ -1296,7 +1295,7 @@ void fill_active_slots(void)
 	}
 
 	while (slot != NULL) {
-		if (!slot->in_use && slot->curl != NULL
+		if (!slot->in_use && !slot->reserved_for_use && slot->curl
 			&& curl_session_count > min_curl_sessions) {
 			curl_easy_cleanup(slot->curl);
 			slot->curl = NULL;
@@ -1327,10 +1326,9 @@ void run_active_slot(struct active_request_slot *slot)
 	fd_set excfds;
 	int max_fd;
 	struct timeval select_timeout;
-	int finished = 0;
 
-	slot->finished = &finished;
-	while (!finished) {
+	slot->reserved_for_use = 1;
+	while (slot->in_use) {
 		step_active_slots();
 
 		if (slot->in_use) {
@@ -1367,6 +1365,7 @@ void run_active_slot(struct active_request_slot *slot)
 			select(max_fd+1, &readfds, &writefds, &excfds, &select_timeout);
 		}
 	}
+	slot->reserved_for_use = 0;
 }
 
 static void release_active_slot(struct active_request_slot *slot)
diff --git a/http.h b/http.h
index df1590e53a4..3b2f6da570c 100644
--- a/http.h
+++ b/http.h
@@ -22,9 +22,9 @@ struct slot_results {
 struct active_request_slot {
 	CURL *curl;
 	int in_use;
+	int reserved_for_use;
 	CURLcode curl_result;
 	long http_code;
-	int *finished;
 	struct slot_results *results;
 	void *callback_data;
 	void (*callback_func)(void *data);
-- 
gitgitgadget

Re: [PATCH 3/4] http.c: avoid danging pointer to local variable `finished`

[Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason]

On Tue, May 24 2022, Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget wrote:

> From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
> [...]
> Let's drop that local variable and introduce a new flag in the slot that
> is used to indicate that even while the slot is no longer in use, it is
> still reserved until further notice. It is the responsibility of
> `run_active_slot()` to clear that flag once it is done with that slot.
>
> Initial-patch-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>

Don't you mean by me?
I.e. https://lore.kernel.org/git/patch-1.1-1cec367e805-20220126T212921Z-avarab@gmail.com/

This seems to be derived from that, or perhaps you just came up with
something similar independently. Junio then came up with the smaller
https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqq8rv2nggn.fsf@gitster.g/

Re: [PATCH 3/4] http.c: avoid danging pointer to local variable `finished`

[Junio C Hamano]

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> writes:

> On Tue, May 24 2022, Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget wrote:
>
>> From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
>> [...]
>> Let's drop that local variable and introduce a new flag in the slot that
>> is used to indicate that even while the slot is no longer in use, it is
>> still reserved until further notice. It is the responsibility of
>> `run_active_slot()` to clear that flag once it is done with that slot.
>>
>> Initial-patch-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
>
> Don't you mean by me?
> I.e. https://lore.kernel.org/git/patch-1.1-1cec367e805-20220126T212921Z-avarab@gmail.com/

Most likely, but this version is so distant from the "clear
slot->finished before leaving run_active_slot()" Dscho and I were
recently discussing, that I do not think it can be said to have been
derived from that one.  This is completely a different patch that
makes different changes.

The "clear slot->finished", by the way, is what I think is the right
thing to do, especially that the objective is to squelch the false
positive warning from a new compiler.  If there is a way to annotate
the line for the compiler to tell it not to warn about it, that would
have been even better.

> This seems to be derived from that, or perhaps you just came up with
> something similar independently. Junio then came up with the smaller
> https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqq8rv2nggn.fsf@gitster.g/

I actually do not think so.  Yours is revert of the existing fix the
compiler is confused about, and I have a feeling that if the original
fix is still relevant, the problem the original fix wanted to address
will resurface as a regression.

If I am reading the patch correctly, Dscho's is to avoid [*] reusing
a slot while any run_active_slot() is still waiting for its
completion.  The approach would solve the problem the original fix
wanted to solve in a different way.  Personally I do not think such
a surgery is necessary only to squelch false positives from a new
warning compiler, though.


[Footnote] 

 * I said "is to avoid", not "avoids", because I haven't studied the
   patch with sufficient degree of carefulness to say for sure, even
   though I can see that is the intent.

Re: [PATCH 3/4] http.c: avoid danging pointer to local variable `finished`

[Johannes Schindelin]

Hi Junio,

On Tue, 24 May 2022, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> The "clear slot->finished", by the way, is what I think is the right
> thing to do, especially that the objective is to squelch the false
> positive warning from a new compiler.  If there is a way to annotate
> the line for the compiler to tell it not to warn about it, that would
> have been even better.

We could do something like this:

-- snip --
diff --git a/http.c b/http.c
index b08795715f8a..2ac8d51d3668 100644
--- a/http.c
+++ b/http.c
@@ -1365,7 +1365,14 @@ void run_active_slot(struct active_request_slot *slot)
 	struct timeval select_timeout;
 	int finished = 0;

+#if __GNUC__ >= 12
+#pragma GCC diagnostic push
+#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wdangling-pointer"
+#endif
 	slot->finished = &finished;
+#if __GNUC__ >= 12
+#pragma GCC diagnostic pop
+#endif
 	while (!finished) {
 		step_active_slots();
-- snap --

That's quite ugly, though. And what's worse, it is pretty unreadable, too.

Ciao,
Dscho

Re: [PATCH 3/4] http.c: avoid danging pointer to local variable `finished`

[Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason]

On Tue, May 24 2022, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

> Hi Junio,
>
> On Tue, 24 May 2022, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> The "clear slot->finished", by the way, is what I think is the right
>> thing to do, especially that the objective is to squelch the false
>> positive warning from a new compiler.  If there is a way to annotate
>> the line for the compiler to tell it not to warn about it, that would
>> have been even better.
>
> We could do something like this:
>
> -- snip --
> diff --git a/http.c b/http.c
> index b08795715f8a..2ac8d51d3668 100644
> --- a/http.c
> +++ b/http.c
> @@ -1365,7 +1365,14 @@ void run_active_slot(struct active_request_slot *slot)
>  	struct timeval select_timeout;
>  	int finished = 0;
>
> +#if __GNUC__ >= 12
> +#pragma GCC diagnostic push
> +#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wdangling-pointer"
> +#endif
>  	slot->finished = &finished;
> +#if __GNUC__ >= 12
> +#pragma GCC diagnostic pop
> +#endif
>  	while (!finished) {
>  		step_active_slots();
> -- snap --
>
> That's quite ugly, though. And what's worse, it is pretty unreadable, too.

Unfortunately that sort of thing is a logic error as clang, ICC and
probably others are on a mission to make __GNUC__ as useless as
possible:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/38499462/how-to-tell-clang-to-stop-pretending-to-be-other-compilers

I think it *might* work in practice though, my local clang claims to be
gcc 4, so maybe everyone faking it stops at a low enough version?

But did you spot 9c539d1027d (config.mak.dev: alternative workaround to
gcc 12 warning in http.c, 2022-04-15)? We already disable this file-wide
in config.mak.dev, but I didn't check if the Windows code was using that
(or if you were targeting those without DEVELOPER=1).

We could move that to thake main Makefile, but then we'd have to call
detect-compiler there. I have some local patches to do something like
that if there's interest (rather, to bootstrap compilation by compiling
a C object and getting the macro values, instead of relying on that
shellscript).

Re: [PATCH 3/4] http.c: avoid danging pointer to local variable `finished`

[Junio C Hamano]

Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:

> Hi Junio,
>
> On Tue, 24 May 2022, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> The "clear slot->finished", by the way, is what I think is the right
>> thing to do, especially that the objective is to squelch the false
>> positive warning from a new compiler.  If there is a way to annotate
>> the line for the compiler to tell it not to warn about it, that would
>> have been even better.
>
> We could do something like this:

Yuck.

> -- snip --
> diff --git a/http.c b/http.c
> index b08795715f8a..2ac8d51d3668 100644
> --- a/http.c
> +++ b/http.c
> @@ -1365,7 +1365,14 @@ void run_active_slot(struct active_request_slot *slot)
>  	struct timeval select_timeout;
>  	int finished = 0;
>
> +#if __GNUC__ >= 12
> +#pragma GCC diagnostic push
> +#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wdangling-pointer"
> +#endif
>  	slot->finished = &finished;
> +#if __GNUC__ >= 12
> +#pragma GCC diagnostic pop
> +#endif
>  	while (!finished) {
>  		step_active_slots();
> -- snap --
>
> That's quite ugly, though. And what's worse, it is pretty unreadable, too.

Yes, very ugly.  Would an unconditional

	slot->finished = NULL;

at the end squelch the warning?

Or there is a way to say "we make all warnings into errors with
-Werror, but we do not want to turn this dangling-pointer warning to
an error, because it has false positives"?

Or we could add "-Wno-dangling-pointer" globally, perhaps.

Re: [PATCH 3/4] http.c: avoid danging pointer to local variable `finished`

[Johannes Schindelin]

Hi Junio,

On Tue, 24 May 2022, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
>
> > On Tue, 24 May 2022, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >
> >> The "clear slot->finished", by the way, is what I think is the right
> >> thing to do, especially that the objective is to squelch the false
> >> positive warning from a new compiler.  If there is a way to annotate
> >> the line for the compiler to tell it not to warn about it, that would
> >> have been even better.
> >
> > We could do something like this:
>
> Yuck.
>
> > -- snip --
> > diff --git a/http.c b/http.c
> > index b08795715f8a..2ac8d51d3668 100644
> > --- a/http.c
> > +++ b/http.c
> > @@ -1365,7 +1365,14 @@ void run_active_slot(struct active_request_slot *slot)
> >  	struct timeval select_timeout;
> >  	int finished = 0;
> >
> > +#if __GNUC__ >= 12
> > +#pragma GCC diagnostic push
> > +#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wdangling-pointer"
> > +#endif
> >  	slot->finished = &finished;
> > +#if __GNUC__ >= 12
> > +#pragma GCC diagnostic pop
> > +#endif
> >  	while (!finished) {
> >  		step_active_slots();
> > -- snap --
> >
> > That's quite ugly, though. And what's worse, it is pretty unreadable, too.
>
> Yes, very ugly.  Would an unconditional
>
> 	slot->finished = NULL;
>
> at the end squelch the warning?

No, unfortunately not:
https://github.com/dscho/git/actions/runs/2383492484

As you mentioned elsewhere, the error is clearly about the assignment in
the first place, and it does not matter that the function will rectify the
situation. It's the correct thing to do for the compiler, too: since
`slot->finished` already has the pointer, and since the
`active_request_slot` struct is declared globally, code outside the
current file might squirrel that pointer away for later use.

> Or there is a way to say "we make all warnings into errors with
> -Werror, but we do not want to turn this dangling-pointer warning to
> an error, because it has false positives"?
>
> Or we could add "-Wno-dangling-pointer" globally, perhaps.

I'd like to avoid that because it would quite likely hide legitimate
issues elsewhere.

It currently seems to be the easiest solution to simply turn the local
variable into a heap variable:

-- snip --
diff --git a/http.c b/http.c
index f92859f43fa..0712debd558 100644
--- a/http.c
+++ b/http.c
@@ -1327,10 +1327,10 @@ void run_active_slot(struct active_request_slot *slot)
 	fd_set excfds;
 	int max_fd;
 	struct timeval select_timeout;
-	int finished = 0;
+	int *finished = xcalloc(1, sizeof(int));

-	slot->finished = &finished;
-	while (!finished) {
+	slot->finished = finished;
+	while (!*finished) {
 		step_active_slots();

 		if (slot->in_use) {
@@ -1367,6 +1367,9 @@ void run_active_slot(struct active_request_slot *slot)
 			select(max_fd+1, &readfds, &writefds, &excfds, &select_timeout);
 		}
 	}
+	if (slot->finished == finished)
+		slot->finished = NULL;
+	free(finished);
 }

 static void release_active_slot(struct active_request_slot *slot)
-- snap --

This pacifies GCC (https://github.com/dscho/git/runs/6589617700) and is
the most minimally-intrusive work-around of which I am currently aware.

Ciao,
Dscho

Re: [PATCH 3/4] http.c: avoid danging pointer to local variable `finished`

[Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason]

On Wed, May 25 2022, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

> Hi Junio,
>
> On Tue, 24 May 2022, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
>>
>> > On Tue, 24 May 2022, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> >
>> >> The "clear slot->finished", by the way, is what I think is the right
>> >> thing to do, especially that the objective is to squelch the false
>> >> positive warning from a new compiler.  If there is a way to annotate
>> >> the line for the compiler to tell it not to warn about it, that would
>> >> have been even better.
>> >
>> > We could do something like this:
>>
>> Yuck.
>>
>> > -- snip --
>> > diff --git a/http.c b/http.c
>> > index b08795715f8a..2ac8d51d3668 100644
>> > --- a/http.c
>> > +++ b/http.c
>> > @@ -1365,7 +1365,14 @@ void run_active_slot(struct active_request_slot *slot)
>> >  	struct timeval select_timeout;
>> >  	int finished = 0;
>> >
>> > +#if __GNUC__ >= 12
>> > +#pragma GCC diagnostic push
>> > +#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wdangling-pointer"
>> > +#endif
>> >  	slot->finished = &finished;
>> > +#if __GNUC__ >= 12
>> > +#pragma GCC diagnostic pop
>> > +#endif
>> >  	while (!finished) {
>> >  		step_active_slots();
>> > -- snap --
>> >
>> > That's quite ugly, though. And what's worse, it is pretty unreadable, too.
>>
>> Yes, very ugly.  Would an unconditional
>>
>> 	slot->finished = NULL;
>>
>> at the end squelch the warning?
>
> No, unfortunately not:
> https://github.com/dscho/git/actions/runs/2383492484 

Yes it does. Didn't you just have a PBCAK between writing that test &
pushing it? Your
https://github.com/dscho/git/blob/tmp/http.c#L1370-L1371 shows that you
didn't make that edit.

This on top of "seen" makes the warning go away:
	
	-       if (slot->finished == &finished)
	-               slot->finished = NULL;
	+       slot->finished = NULL;

This is also all covered in the initial thread from back in January,
which if you're slowly re-discovering the learnings from there I
encourage you to read in more detail... :)

> As you mentioned elsewhere, the error is clearly about the assignment in
> the first place, and it does not matter that the function will rectify the
> situation. It's the correct thing to do for the compiler, too: since
> `slot->finished` already has the pointer, and since the
> `active_request_slot` struct is declared globally, code outside the
> current file might squirrel that pointer away for later use.

Per the above this isn't true, and in some side-thread replies (and in
the initial thread) I've linked to the GCC code in question. NULL-ing
the slot is sufficient, it doesn't matter that the struct it's in
survives the function, just that the pointer isn't exposed.

>> Or there is a way to say "we make all warnings into errors with
>> -Werror, but we do not want to turn this dangling-pointer warning to
>> an error, because it has false positives"?
>>
>> Or we could add "-Wno-dangling-pointer" globally, perhaps.
>
> I'd like to avoid that because it would quite likely hide legitimate
> issues elsewhere.
>
> It currently seems to be the easiest solution to simply turn the local
> variable into a heap variable:
>
> -- snip --
> diff --git a/http.c b/http.c
> index f92859f43fa..0712debd558 100644
> --- a/http.c
> +++ b/http.c
> @@ -1327,10 +1327,10 @@ void run_active_slot(struct active_request_slot *slot)
>  	fd_set excfds;
>  	int max_fd;
>  	struct timeval select_timeout;
> -	int finished = 0;
> +	int *finished = xcalloc(1, sizeof(int));
>
> -	slot->finished = &finished;
> -	while (!finished) {
> +	slot->finished = finished;
> +	while (!*finished) {
>  		step_active_slots();
>
>  		if (slot->in_use) {
> @@ -1367,6 +1367,9 @@ void run_active_slot(struct active_request_slot *slot)
>  			select(max_fd+1, &readfds, &writefds, &excfds, &select_timeout);
>  		}
>  	}
> +	if (slot->finished == finished)
> +		slot->finished = NULL;
> +	free(finished);
>  }

Also, if we were going to tweak this extensively I'd think this slightly
larger POC patch would be a better direction, i.e. we don't need a
pointer at all, we're just (ab)using it for a tri-state NULL/0/1, why
not just use an enum?

I think the "if it's what we just set it to" is just cargo-culting, is
there anything to show that run_active_slot() is reentrant? Wouldn't we
be better off with a static variable + BUG() that we increment/decremant
and panic if it's anything but 0 and 1 if we'd like to add paranoia
around that?

diff --git a/http-walker.c b/http-walker.c
index b8f0f98ae14..26184a82ddb 100644
--- a/http-walker.c
+++ b/http-walker.c
@@ -225,13 +225,13 @@ static void process_alternates_response(void *callback_data)
 					 alt_req->url->buf);
 			active_requests++;
 			slot->in_use = 1;
-			if (slot->finished)
-				(*slot->finished) = 0;
+			if (slot->f != FIN_UNSET)
+                            slot->f = FIN_NO;
 			if (!start_active_slot(slot)) {
 				cdata->got_alternates = -1;
 				slot->in_use = 0;
-				if (slot->finished)
-					(*slot->finished) = 1;
+                                if (slot->f != FIN_UNSET)
+                                    slot->f = FIN_YES;
 			}
 			return;
 		}
diff --git a/http.c b/http.c
index b148468b267..845dd40768c 100644
--- a/http.c
+++ b/http.c
@@ -197,8 +197,8 @@ static void finish_active_slot(struct active_request_slot *slot)
 	closedown_active_slot(slot);
 	curl_easy_getinfo(slot->curl, CURLINFO_HTTP_CODE, &slot->http_code);
 
-	if (slot->finished)
-		(*slot->finished) = 1;
+	if (slot->f != FIN_UNSET)
+		slot->f = FIN_YES;
 
 	/* Store slot results so they can be read after the slot is reused */
 	if (slot->results) {
@@ -1204,7 +1204,7 @@ struct active_request_slot *get_active_slot(void)
 	active_requests++;
 	slot->in_use = 1;
 	slot->results = NULL;
-	slot->finished = NULL;
+	slot->f = FIN_UNSET;
 	slot->callback_data = NULL;
 	slot->callback_func = NULL;
 	curl_easy_setopt(slot->curl, CURLOPT_COOKIEFILE, curl_cookie_file);
@@ -1327,10 +1327,9 @@ void run_active_slot(struct active_request_slot *slot)
 	fd_set excfds;
 	int max_fd;
 	struct timeval select_timeout;
-	int finished = 0;
 
-	slot->finished = &finished;
-	while (!finished) {
+	slot->f = FIN_NO;
+	while (slot->f == FIN_NO) {
 		step_active_slots();
 
 		if (slot->in_use) {
diff --git a/http.h b/http.h
index df1590e53a4..fc664d90bc9 100644
--- a/http.h
+++ b/http.h
@@ -19,12 +19,13 @@ struct slot_results {
 	long http_connectcode;
 };
 
+enum fin { FIN_UNSET, FIN_NO, FIN_YES };
 struct active_request_slot {
 	CURL *curl;
 	int in_use;
 	CURLcode curl_result;
 	long http_code;
-	int *finished;
+	enum fin f;
 	struct slot_results *results;
 	void *callback_data;
 	void (*callback_func)(void *data);

[PATCH 4/4] dir.c: avoid "exceeds maximum object size" error with GCC v12.x

[Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget]

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>

Technically, the pointer difference `end - start` _could_ be negative,
and when cast to an (unsigned) `size_t` that would cause problems. In
this instance, the symptom is:

dir.c: In function 'git_url_basename':
dir.c:3087:13: error: 'memchr' specified bound [9223372036854775808, 0]
       exceeds maximum object size 9223372036854775807
       [-Werror=stringop-overread]
    CC ewah/bitmap.o
 3087 |         if (memchr(start, '/', end - start) == NULL
      |             ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

While it is a bit far-fetched to think that `end` (which is defined as
`repo + strlen(repo)`) and `start` (which starts at `repo` and never
steps beyond the NUL terminator) could result in such a negative
difference, GCC has no way of knowing that.

See also https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla//show_bug.cgi?id=85783.

Let's just add a safety check, primarily for GCC's benefit.

Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
---
 dir.c | 9 +++++++++
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)

diff --git a/dir.c b/dir.c
index 5aa6fbad0b7..ea78f606230 100644
--- a/dir.c
+++ b/dir.c
@@ -3076,6 +3076,15 @@ char *git_url_basename(const char *repo, int is_bundle, int is_bare)
 			end--;
 	}
 
+	/*
+	 * It should not be possible to overflow `ptrdiff_t` by passing in an
+	 * insanely long URL, but GCC does not know that and will complain
+	 * without this check.
+	 */
+	if (end - start < 0)
+		die(_("No directory name could be guessed.\n"
+		      "Please specify a directory on the command line"));
+
 	/*
 	 * Strip trailing port number if we've got only a
 	 * hostname (that is, there is no dir separator but a
-- 
gitgitgadget

Re: [PATCH 4/4] dir.c: avoid "exceeds maximum object size" error with GCC v12.x

[Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason]

On Tue, May 24 2022, Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget wrote:

> From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
>
> Technically, the pointer difference `end - start` _could_ be negative,
> and when cast to an (unsigned) `size_t` that would cause problems. In
> this instance, the symptom is:
>
> dir.c: In function 'git_url_basename':
> dir.c:3087:13: error: 'memchr' specified bound [9223372036854775808, 0]
>        exceeds maximum object size 9223372036854775807
>        [-Werror=stringop-overread]
>     CC ewah/bitmap.o
>  3087 |         if (memchr(start, '/', end - start) == NULL
>       |             ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> While it is a bit far-fetched to think that `end` (which is defined as
> `repo + strlen(repo)`) and `start` (which starts at `repo` and never
> steps beyond the NUL terminator) could result in such a negative
> difference, GCC has no way of knowing that.
>
> See also https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla//show_bug.cgi?id=85783.
>
> Let's just add a safety check, primarily for GCC's benefit.
>
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
> ---
>  dir.c | 9 +++++++++
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/dir.c b/dir.c
> index 5aa6fbad0b7..ea78f606230 100644
> --- a/dir.c
> +++ b/dir.c
> @@ -3076,6 +3076,15 @@ char *git_url_basename(const char *repo, int is_bundle, int is_bare)
>  			end--;
>  	}
>  
> +	/*
> +	 * It should not be possible to overflow `ptrdiff_t` by passing in an
> +	 * insanely long URL, but GCC does not know that and will complain
> +	 * without this check.
> +	 */
> +	if (end - start < 0)
> +		die(_("No directory name could be guessed.\n"

This should start with a lower-case letter, see CodingGuidelines.

> +		      "Please specify a directory on the command line"));
> +
>  	/*
>  	 * Strip trailing port number if we've got only a
>  	 * hostname (that is, there is no dir separator but a

Re: [PATCH 4/4] dir.c: avoid "exceeds maximum object size" error with GCC v12.x

[Johannes Schindelin]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2489 bytes --]

Hi Ævar,

On Tue, 24 May 2022, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:

>
> On Tue, May 24 2022, Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget wrote:
>
> > From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
> >
> > Technically, the pointer difference `end - start` _could_ be negative,
> > and when cast to an (unsigned) `size_t` that would cause problems. In
> > this instance, the symptom is:
> >
> > dir.c: In function 'git_url_basename':
> > dir.c:3087:13: error: 'memchr' specified bound [9223372036854775808, 0]
> >        exceeds maximum object size 9223372036854775807
> >        [-Werror=stringop-overread]
> >     CC ewah/bitmap.o
> >  3087 |         if (memchr(start, '/', end - start) == NULL
> >       |             ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > While it is a bit far-fetched to think that `end` (which is defined as
> > `repo + strlen(repo)`) and `start` (which starts at `repo` and never
> > steps beyond the NUL terminator) could result in such a negative
> > difference, GCC has no way of knowing that.
> >
> > See also https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla//show_bug.cgi?id=85783.
> >
> > Let's just add a safety check, primarily for GCC's benefit.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
> > ---
> >  dir.c | 9 +++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/dir.c b/dir.c
> > index 5aa6fbad0b7..ea78f606230 100644
> > --- a/dir.c
> > +++ b/dir.c
> > @@ -3076,6 +3076,15 @@ char *git_url_basename(const char *repo, int is_bundle, int is_bare)
> >  			end--;
> >  	}
> >
> > +	/*
> > +	 * It should not be possible to overflow `ptrdiff_t` by passing in an
> > +	 * insanely long URL, but GCC does not know that and will complain
> > +	 * without this check.
> > +	 */
> > +	if (end - start < 0)
> > +		die(_("No directory name could be guessed.\n"
>
> This should start with a lower-case letter, see CodingGuidelines.

This message is copied from existing code later in the same function.
Since it is a translateable message, I do not want to edit it because that
would cause unnecessary work of the translators. Especially given that we
do not even expect this message to be shown, ever, but we only add this
hunk for GCC's benefit.

Thank you,
Johannes

>
> > +		      "Please specify a directory on the command line"));
> > +
> >  	/*
> >  	 * Strip trailing port number if we've got only a
> >  	 * hostname (that is, there is no dir separator but a
>
>

Re: [PATCH 4/4] dir.c: avoid "exceeds maximum object size" error with GCC v12.x

[Derrick Stolee]

On 5/24/2022 5:05 PM, Johannes Schindelin wrote:> On Tue, 24 May 2022, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>> On Tue, May 24 2022, Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget wrote:
>>> +	/*
>>> +	 * It should not be possible to overflow `ptrdiff_t` by passing in an
>>> +	 * insanely long URL, but GCC does not know that and will complain
>>> +	 * without this check.
>>> +	 */
>>> +	if (end - start < 0)
>>> +		die(_("No directory name could be guessed.\n"
>>
>> This should start with a lower-case letter, see CodingGuidelines.
> 
> This message is copied from existing code later in the same function.
> Since it is a translateable message, I do not want to edit it because that
> would cause unnecessary work of the translators. Especially given that we
> do not even expect this message to be shown, ever, but we only add this
> hunk for GCC's benefit.

Perhaps this should be a BUG() statement, then? Without any
translation?

Thanks,
-Stolee

Re: [PATCH 4/4] dir.c: avoid "exceeds maximum object size" error with GCC v12.x

[Junio C Hamano]

Derrick Stolee <derrickstolee@github.com> writes:

> On 5/24/2022 5:05 PM, Johannes Schindelin wrote:> On Tue, 24 May 2022, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 24 2022, Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget wrote:
>>>> +	/*
>>>> +	 * It should not be possible to overflow `ptrdiff_t` by passing in an
>>>> +	 * insanely long URL, but GCC does not know that and will complain
>>>> +	 * without this check.
>>>> +	 */
>>>> +	if (end - start < 0)
>>>> +		die(_("No directory name could be guessed.\n"
>>>
>>> This should start with a lower-case letter, see CodingGuidelines.
>> 
>> This message is copied from existing code later in the same function.
>> Since it is a translateable message, I do not want to edit it because that
>> would cause unnecessary work of the translators. Especially given that we
>> do not even expect this message to be shown, ever, but we only add this
>> hunk for GCC's benefit.
>
> Perhaps this should be a BUG() statement, then? Without any
> translation?

Yeah, both are good.  If somehow the caller managed to pass such a
long URL then it can be considered a data error at runtime, and not
that the user detected a bug in our code, so in that sense die()
would be appropriate.  It is like xmalloc() running out of memory.

On the other hand, the "should not be possible to overflow" in the
comment implicitly assumes that it is impossible to pass insanely
long URL to trigger the condition from places we think of offhand,
like the command line, where the input is limited to a much shorter
string.  As "we detected a situation that should not happen unless
there is a programming or design bug" is what BUG() means, it is
also good here---our assumption that this should not be possible
turned out to be faulty, so we noticed a design bug.

I wonder if we can add a separate macro to add more to the
documentation value, though.  With something like

    #define FALSE_WARNING(expression, message) \
	do { if (expression) { BUG(message); } while (0)

the above would just become

	FALSE_WARNING(end - start < 0, "ptrdiff_t would not overflow here");

without a need for a big comment before it.  We might even be able
to optimize it out when building with compilers that do not need the
workaround.

Re: [PATCH 0/4] ci: fix windows-build with GCC v12.x

[Jeff Hostetler]

On 5/23/22 8:23 PM, Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget wrote:
> A recent update of GCC in Git for Windows' SDK (a subset of which is used in
> Git's CI/PR builds) broke the build.
> 
> These patches address that, and they are based on maint-2.34 (earlier
> maintenance tracks would have a trivial merge conflict due to 013c7e2b070
> (http: drop support for curl < 7.16.0, 2021-07-30) removing support for
> USE_CURL_MULTI).
> 
> Johannes Schindelin (4):
>    compat/win32/syslog: fix use-after-realloc
>    nedmalloc: avoid new compile error
>    http.c: avoid danging pointer to local variable `finished`
>    dir.c: avoid "exceeds maximum object size" error with GCC v12.x
> 
>   compat/nedmalloc/nedmalloc.c |  1 -
>   compat/win32/syslog.c        |  2 ++
>   dir.c                        |  9 +++++++++
>   http-walker.c                |  4 ----
>   http.c                       | 15 +++++++--------
>   http.h                       |  2 +-
>   6 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> 
> 
> base-commit: 2f0dde7852b7866bb044926f73334ff3fc30654b
> Published-As: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/releases/tag/pr-1238%2Fdscho%2Ffix-win-build-with-gcc-12-v1
> Fetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git pr-1238/dscho/fix-win-build-with-gcc-12-v1
> Pull-Request: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/1238
> 

This looks good to me.  I reviewed it earlier in one of our
downstream forks.

Jeff