From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C6013857C70 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2022 17:46:16 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 0C6013857C70 Received: from mail-qk1-f199.google.com (mail-qk1-f199.google.com [209.85.222.199]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-665-P6lAMzzhOmWunw9L2RWvqg-1; Tue, 25 Jan 2022 12:46:14 -0500 X-MC-Unique: P6lAMzzhOmWunw9L2RWvqg-1 Received: by mail-qk1-f199.google.com with SMTP id n3-20020ae9c303000000b00477e4f3dfd2so15284716qkg.21 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2022 09:46:14 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject :content-language:to:references:from:organization:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=vtLqytNHY6pGATTeOVMxunc1A7Hvn+x3bXt/WSlGVkE=; b=Zyygcap1k/uMdk0NofVlCiRw6ALQg8YrCs3xR/PSpIDs2pjCRBRlBs+z/kcj3GDPen t4A52elJYPtZkfG5pRXjXX4h5wcNvfRPyk8f8DP1UO8bCEyU5d7sRM3/Gsv4LoijykSq kZyzrNpkcW0w45BgaSbZ+Vqye3ApMjzbq6Gohas18iooHyJX3KKxVGsySSb+jWGCEVpZ 3Fr4IqeV/gTZtHUGZami1Uca6ITIblJ/0xioJ/juCuEGsc1zWV3L6vu7SMwOkBU+Mjtm oZO1qtE9LFktcnbD6oJvN/Wre6xPGnvnUr0zvSi58aZxFNsH9LNBGT88CVQQd4n/bUbn xsFA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532N4UIazBgqwxKxzCXULaLef2gWxEqI5w92XGP9Rd3ye85GMhsO a73q4a6k778yTGSJKGwZy6/wt+68npXyIEAENn51+C5VLhNyG0onYBmLrsyap7+DZ+JVGzCzyky JgjoLFgNjFfM9PeknqZaJ X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:5004:: with SMTP id jo4mr718491qvb.83.1643132773447; Tue, 25 Jan 2022 09:46:13 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw/6ZdgXv9LAito+opTDydApWUrBnhQRulTMKUmxymjrsD1/LeY3A1y7pSaGHK1suEX7v6asA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:5004:: with SMTP id jo4mr718474qvb.83.1643132773225; Tue, 25 Jan 2022 09:46:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.241] (135-23-175-80.cpe.pppoe.ca. [135.23.175.80]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w14sm2677975qtc.29.2022.01.25.09.46.12 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 25 Jan 2022 09:46:12 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4211cb98-b3ce-1815-f3d3-b352351e0062@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2022 12:46:11 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.4.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] avoid -Wuse-after-free [BZ #26779] To: Martin Sebor , libc-alpha@sourceware.org References: <53f20975-a2c9-674d-2a43-b1b323ee545c@gmail.com> From: Carlos O'Donell Organization: Red Hat In-Reply-To: <53f20975-a2c9-674d-2a43-b1b323ee545c@gmail.com> X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_NONE, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: libc-alpha@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Libc-alpha mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2022 17:46:17 -0000 On 1/24/22 19:52, Martin Sebor via Libc-alpha wrote: > This is a repost of the original patch but broken down by source > file and with some suppression done by #pragma GCC diagnostic > instead of conversion to intptr_t.  It also adds fixes for > the same problem in the test suite that I overlooked before. Thanks for the repost! We really want gcc 12 and glibc 2.35 to work together. For future posts please review the contribution checklist, we have some specific instructions to help reviewers and CI/CD that interacts with your patch. (1) Allow the reviewer to review all of what you will push. Your current posts do not use git format-patch and so do not provide me with the commit message for review. The intent is that I as a reviewer can review your commit message as expected to be pushed. I want to be able to see all of the work you will push (like a PR/MR) and approve it all. It should be possible for you to have pushed all 5 patches as distinct commits with commit messages, use git format-patch --cover-letter HEAD~5 to generate 6 files to mail out, and then you fill in patch 0 and send. (2) CI/CD Your use of "Re:" in patches 2-5 has broken CI, and it sees these as follow-ups to your original messages. The contribution checklist has some notes about this: ~~~ In order for an in-reply-to with a new version of the patch to be treated as a new patch you must remove the "Re:" from the subject. If you leave the "Re:" then patchwork considers your reply a comment to the original patch. This is important to support reviewers using patchwork for pulling patches and for CI/CD systems testing your patches. ~~~ Is "Re:" common in other communities you are a part of? -- Cheers, Carlos.