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-ASN: AS3215 2.6.0.0/16 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email [IPv6:2620:137:e000::1:20]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11A7B1F59D for ; Thu, 1 Sep 2022 19:54:36 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: dcvr.yhbt.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="SBJXyDgy"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233382AbiIATy1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Sep 2022 15:54:27 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:39574 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231936AbiIATy0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Sep 2022 15:54:26 -0400 Received: from mail-pf1-x429.google.com (mail-pf1-x429.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::429]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89EC64DB51 for ; Thu, 1 Sep 2022 12:54:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pf1-x429.google.com with SMTP id t129so18456616pfb.6 for ; Thu, 01 Sep 2022 12:54:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:user-agent:message-id :in-reply-to:date:references:subject:cc:to:from:sender:from:to:cc :subject:date; bh=n76UubAKzUdVmHa7a3ns7C9stwwwPnggHlW14/ArfqI=; b=SBJXyDgyFM+9ObA9oqXXIEGdkAd9vb6M7eH1YIMmHPOL+qPnSmDKk9hnWA8P+CtZbf W1iaHU56a+QB49C7rldcUp3k8wpkIg0xujZvJnObz4iXn8j+0nF33vrd+0npnJAT5+xO hWVNHu6t07MFdZ96G1wE8ZezTzpLkdHmoVzMpv7k/Jms7S3ogjAuDKFVUFWC4LYDAuXB Kx+dIBwyfLM3qAe/DMGokEJITAZEZiWfPgVMG6KGzYMQI0abYvjsOKOiG/r32qMXYd33 2kUmyBGVwDW/E5qWsuF5H8UoA4/yUraD+c3JXFugMleLc0o4nrD5EfY7229VlE/En02g 9bhg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:user-agent:message-id :in-reply-to:date:references:subject:cc:to:from:sender :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=n76UubAKzUdVmHa7a3ns7C9stwwwPnggHlW14/ArfqI=; b=xhuW1tj8dKar7jUx4xbJ21uqBWKkM6MJ6ms5GlIz0d2hK4I3Vu6Lb0/pSdNhH9vhyg Whr188x+vkozEM+mJ+NT9K8RWDbuVKjIuE9DIawud3VzB9+oPDdwacMNBQ4k/LGBeNuY iBatNuP4nLqbplOt4w/cXBPMVzoJ7dDB4dh1va6mHuZQfQr0F3iJ430IFXWz9z4iWkpm L1UocGdLiWaPYkX/oJtBnsWcIgfStDbAGd+XA+X8GcEm3ODCIh+dbce/N4fkuGeQVuFY WqWrVTXbE08EKul6WYftiCYNvPjXonhhHMiPhqkhkIrqeDYiKhM9sg6UzgmtDclbsybZ 5RXQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo3p9DqLOfW9V8rvRpk7VzauTXUMVSAzIY3pMJWO654KZwj2wiRx qjzecOUATb9EP7J33z82gb4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR6WezorHByNw16kdAPAsb3H8pWIHWHtRUE25oQ4nYwMkPHR1k9c7ZvjExFE8tM+xI9NfeNpbA== X-Received: by 2002:a63:dd51:0:b0:430:18d9:edf8 with SMTP id g17-20020a63dd51000000b0043018d9edf8mr8934220pgj.163.1662062064920; Thu, 01 Sep 2022 12:54:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (33.5.83.34.bc.googleusercontent.com. [34.83.5.33]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g194-20020a6252cb000000b00538505ff705sm8453722pfb.91.2022.09.01.12.54.21 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 01 Sep 2022 12:54:22 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Junio C Hamano From: Junio C Hamano To: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason Cc: Elijah Newren , Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget , Git Mailing List , Philippe Blain Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Output fixes for --remerge-diff References: <220901.86tu5rhqtg.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2022 12:54:20 -0700 In-Reply-To: <220901.86tu5rhqtg.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com> (=?utf-8?B?IsOG?= =?utf-8?B?dmFyIEFybmZqw7Zyw7A=?= Bjarmason"'s message of "Thu, 01 Sep 2022 20:46:44 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason writes: > We've discussed doing it that way before. I wouldn't be fundamentally > opposed, but I do think we're far enough along the way to being > leak-free that we'd want to mark more than just a "top-level" command as > leak-free. Two things. Seeing the leak-check breakage quite often, I doubt how much trust I can place in your "far enough along the way" statement. Also, I do not think we thought the alternative was to mark only the top-level. The test could inspect the crash after the fact, and say "ah, allocation made by xcalloc() called from this and that functions are still known to be leaky, so do not stop and mark the CI job a failure for this one", for example?