From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C74A1F428 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 22:20:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753158AbeAEWUQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Jan 2018 17:20:16 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:51023 "EHLO pb-smtp2.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753095AbeAEWUP (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Jan 2018 17:20:15 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EF93CAEFE; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 17:20:12 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=vsi9sTRNNBGxsn5E0E17PQZTbY4=; b=a6O1XP MvFXWDXxLg0JY9SnjmkArP8rTWe5cLOOt8T7sP1A67FonTbYI0aGRWqzKZND5UUu qGfPy1icQvDMX9WtH9H12ZmshmI53EO4PNLysNqsqWzZnhS9kYDIStqNRs12q6XX ZqbjKQ1fDzTIBFlQspoVclT7SoQ7hnXhzNBFY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=ZqCUnF6aoYeDvG65SIi7idNc7gnsSL6c 8/ATj+b8/goworLZ7xXCJ0AurA/gAVjdyFxDT59HGb1F5c1CfAQB8/4EcreQf9VH aABgZkVNaJjEPIdYksKndW+xKtbANTbKNq17jSrUh0lrn3Px7Urg/aBpxS/EeBn4 P1KW1ZrFxM0= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9764ACAEFD; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 17:20:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1D3FCCAEFC; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 17:20:12 -0500 (EST) From: Junio C Hamano To: Yasushi SHOJI Cc: Martin =?utf-8?Q?=C3=85gren?= , =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason , Git Mailing List , Christian Couder Subject: Re: [BUG] v2.16.0-rc0 seg faults when git bisect skip References: <87fu7nc9a2.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2018 14:20:11 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Yasushi SHOJI's message of "Fri, 5 Jan 2018 11:45:43 +0900") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 98BF0452-F266-11E7-8A47-575F0C78B957-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Yasushi SHOJI writes: > The patch (actually, I've tested the one in pu, 2e9fdc795cb27) avoids > the seg fault for sure, but the question is: > > When does the list allowed to contain NULLs? A very legitimate question. With the proposed log message alone, it is even tempting to declare that the change may merely be sweeping the issue under the rug. A bit better explanation is needed, at least.