From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EDE41F4B4 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2020 21:41:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730430AbgLOVlF (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Dec 2020 16:41:05 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:33684 "EHLO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729861AbgLOVhs (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Dec 2020 16:37:48 -0500 Received: (qmail 17642 invoked by uid 109); 15 Dec 2020 21:37:05 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Tue, 15 Dec 2020 21:37:05 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 19887 invoked by uid 111); 15 Dec 2020 21:37:04 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 15 Dec 2020 16:37:04 -0500 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2020 16:37:03 -0500 From: Jeff King To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Elijah Newren , "Randall S. Becker" , Git Mailing List Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-2.30.0-rc0 - Compile Fails on HPE NonStop Message-ID: References: <035d01d6d26e$8c255260$a46ff720$@nexbridge.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 01:08:18PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Elijah Newren writes: > > > Doh, sorry for the bug. Yeah, that's the exact fix I'd make. Junio, > > do you want to just use the changes you've already got, or would you > > like me to submit a patch removing these two 'return's? > > Nah, the other half of the reported issue was mine, so let me see if > I can quickly whip up a two-patch series. Thanks, both look OK to me. I probably would have kept "return -1" in the setitimer one, but I doubt it really matters much either way. -Peff