From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-il1-x129.google.com (mail-il1-x129.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::129]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D56773851C02 for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2022 03:08:26 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org D56773851C02 Received: by mail-il1-x129.google.com with SMTP id z7so3663940ilb.6 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2022 19:08:26 -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:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=aG0gfKlGytv58N7CLee0HLyIp3DACTT8oE625711IJg=; b=hacWcfc56acAbfzxuPd/DbrXH9sjA1NiXJxir46L4P/OiITpoxYBHHLV+Zy2POUoow g3182My2nmulY0JYn4XdjQ8YLztLQcxLWPAF2Iqgdd0Vji9XtshvQV3d9vwRZAMs3kL5 +Zas4yXBRBI3cVhq43Ec0XpgCf3hvVBgtEMCS3VDxGdyWOZb16Q7Ud2sFflsSuEAXe/t RylAc6s3jrsE67cO+TjDnFZAEfyrujXGbLYKpEWBKkHZ2CpVMBPbPyUJcjHdx6bc99kM g4TYenTY8DEfQemx83UCKsYJmZsO1iXp3T1znKEHZoPa0BZ28Mj+CAEfCiZGoATXfKOY ZO2w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532v+kjuFf1HaeqdUOUfcqK1q1n24d/mmD4SsaBbvo63IhUNo53a QigSe4JQLQ2ESH6UYfduuC0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy65TSoN7AQ950G64eRUPkZfXQaNvOgmt+V9kn7Rnfkjl+Xc157/4DOu7TuFN7b63AK7w2TYg== X-Received: by 2002:a92:cd81:: with SMTP id r1mr12767120ilb.31.1643166506262; Tue, 25 Jan 2022 19:08:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.41] (97-118-100-142.hlrn.qwest.net. [97.118.100.142]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g5sm10838150ila.59.2022.01.25.19.08.24 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 25 Jan 2022 19:08:25 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <65678cb0-8336-ed5f-3b0e-f8cdd922a6c2@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2022 20:08:23 -0700 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] Content-Language: en-US To: Carlos O'Donell , libc-alpha@sourceware.org References: <53f20975-a2c9-674d-2a43-b1b323ee545c@gmail.com> <4211cb98-b3ce-1815-f3d3-b352351e0062@redhat.com> From: Martin Sebor In-Reply-To: <4211cb98-b3ce-1815-f3d3-b352351e0062@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, FREEMAIL_FROM, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, 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: Wed, 26 Jan 2022 03:08:28 -0000 On 1/25/22 10:46, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > 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. Thanks for the review! I've pushed the changes as distinct commits with the adjusted descriptions (including Florian suggestion) after rerunning the tests. Some of the tests failed so I fixed those up and posted an update. > > (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? > In GCC it doesn't matter. Other things that don't matter here are enforced there (e.g., like the minute details of ChangeLog entries, the exact form of the PR reference and where it goes). Martin