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: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEEAD1F4BD for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2019 05:02:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727325AbfJCFCJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Oct 2019 01:02:09 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:55789 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726816AbfJCFCJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Oct 2019 01:02:09 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63B981EDA7; Thu, 3 Oct 2019 01:02:06 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) 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=D0JS86sFJqscvFNHKX9vKqvipAw=; b=YIXmDR 04dgEhyg7/7Z5f/gpd6AX93Ux3IalZ2rfFYO2o6E2C0dAa8MIS9SJ0YCgXKvw/ev Mq0M2nH5Gq66eNB3tg/uDUG0gRwrWvd3bQUElFxyU4t+eFHAjcqBzCRmgJ8ubwMr ho8Baplfb6vGKjVq9Vdtkmm5eHyNQnbd45o8w= 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=a4PnLst6h+TjCBgnOFmoauvuBFkP3p59 WAzPiicI4Ax0K3Z2raJm7jMt/uIijO7ECRCcxC4MXim9FALuWIuX88zYn+ohNJYN 6S65NbCrmAL++lth4ZQ7jkvNVLpaKclOfkcqW8O9BrHuFzOPqBiYCnSxzMXD48q+ JqgM6+t7vFM= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1E9E1EDA6; Thu, 3 Oct 2019 01:02:05 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.76.80.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A08F01EDA5; Thu, 3 Oct 2019 01:02:03 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Carlo Arenas Cc: Johannes Schindelin , git@vger.kernel.org, avarab@gmail.com, l.s.r@web.de, michal.kiedrowicz@gmail.com Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 2/3] grep: make PCRE2 aware of custom allocator References: <20190807213945.10464-1-carenas@gmail.com> <20190809030210.18353-1-carenas@gmail.com> <20190809030210.18353-3-carenas@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2019 14:02:02 +0900 In-Reply-To: (Carlo Arenas's message of "Tue, 27 Aug 2019 04:51:14 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: F0A8BA72-E59A-11E9-98F2-C28CBED8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Carlo Arenas writes: > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 2:07 AM Johannes Schindelin > wrote: >> >> Unfortunately, this is _still_ incorrect. > ... > Just to clarify, I think my patch accounts for that (haven't tested > that assumption, but will do now that I have a windows box, probably > even with mi-alloc) but yes, the only reason why there were references > to NEDMALLOC was to isolate the code and make sure the fix was > tackling the problem, it was not my intention to do so at the end, > specially once we agreed that xmalloc should be used anyway. > ... > apologize for the delays, and will be fine using your squash, mine, > the V6 RC (my preference) or dropping this series from pu if that > would help clear the ugliness of pu for windows So,... have we seen any conclusion on this? Can any of you guys give us a pointer to or copies of the candidate to be the final solution of this topic, please? Thanks.