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=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, 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 8D92D2047F for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 05:12:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751284AbdITFMk (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Sep 2017 01:12:40 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:51739 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751011AbdITFMj (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Sep 2017 01:12:39 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 176FF963F6; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 01:12:39 -0400 (EDT) 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=8RhpIxL7IqJBars6UXzzKTw+4hA=; b=iM8kpg Ak/UQzCnqicppE5S+7bWoQ3cH3G+ziUj7IBZly8ynvGQh4ZWPPJDeani2VJXdCv4 xKYXVWT7HG/cUnmaeErR6fbE9ZHCteJiaZFJ++SeE3KzRIpmOZJeUSV5ZK5T6usI q2jIzURtgV6x5H4BXHU25KPkryvMWNZPpwdPI= 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=VTJhvem2cJSUDjM26ZkxdMA/4yBLAeiB EiaNbpxZ4SFNnENlWXl/rL9afJZ9koZempO1/VmOU0WWOjklTxVvPv94AyatjrCp Sqmr3j9aF/8y6fEVGANEYOzm53NkYA9I6l2dYURqm2Md12jUCRd9qegIJ0sU5x0D C0sv9Ims4W0= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C2DE963F5; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 01:12:39 -0400 (EDT) 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 69FA4963F4; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 01:12:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: Jonathan Tan , git@vger.kernel.org, Martin =?utf-8?Q?=C3=85gren?= , Stefan Beller , Ramsay Jones Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/10] add UNLEAK annotation for reducing leak false positives References: <20170905130149.agc3zp3s6i6e5aki@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20170908063841.wb23ibs2ancdct2v@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20170919134552.7845f021@twelve2.svl.corp.google.com> <20170919210300.cbrdjqor6xuwd7bs@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20170920022838.tlkb5qlmctlstqb6@sigill.intra.peff.net> Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 14:12:37 +0900 In-Reply-To: <20170920022838.tlkb5qlmctlstqb6@sigill.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Tue, 19 Sep 2017 22:28:38 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 521675F6-9DC2-11E7-94B8-9D2B0D78B957-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King writes: > At any rate, I think Jonathan's point is that writing: > > UNLEAK(foo) > > will silently pass in a normal build, and only much later will somebody > run a leak-checking build and see the compile error. Yeah, I think I understand that concern. #if SOME_CONDITION #define X(y) do_x(y) #else #define X(y) /* nothing */ #endif is something we quite often use, and I just found it a bit unusual that all of a sudden we start to be extra careful only with this macro.