From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from cloud.peff.net (cloud.peff.net [217.216.95.84]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EAF17FC0A for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2026 00:34:30 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.216.95.84 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783298072; cv=none; b=byBtO0kMt9j25gXG15MWyR1pK9jl8cPCaGu4H29oMtuy2n7pcfus0zQMdDarWGssjI3gtYGTeKXaqzHvzBdVYOPLdTh0U76WnIu1+JtvErnqm5rI/InX0tZ7RBF9y88xnCRVMUvuJ47rcwV5wcBr0hIuWl+yWarmh1cr06Qa86U= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783298072; c=relaxed/simple; bh=U+jLxptQPIUqAdpv7o7Mn9SLvWBZh+baaHn71fvXHSI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=u4amzu5OBpggVVZhnqp5wNal3gWnYdkWGhBEw6SP9m8I1TVzv4h1ZnoJRp2vjVYXeejFyYRYLl1Bkmiu7UKQOxL2FNLcCgGx6XrVvD8cNKJ7BOfuVhfqyFqCwEwss8g+8crbOn0uw1CcLKd69H+7cz5B3q//FXTRu6w18NCYe54= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=peff.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=peff.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=peff.net header.i=@peff.net header.b=SzsxHWCR; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.216.95.84 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=peff.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=peff.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=peff.net header.i=@peff.net header.b="SzsxHWCR" Received: (qmail 2486 invoked by uid 106); 6 Jul 2026 00:34:30 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=peff.net; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=20240930; bh=U+jLxptQPIUqAdpv7o7Mn9SLvWBZh+baaHn71fvXHSI=; b=SzsxHWCRB9HIaaij/lpLRWIvcbcB2jGcByGvdUZ4Y441CCubyPNH3pFjDO8VlKsPbt0m0cIiwVcTo9wWqGSVRq4jeL3FTJUZPAK2irzSZB8TpYgLBEG1U9rCPzujWDmAgzRKnTgH2e4HyvshJ0myfve/GGWdl/GQmhHCiynau3K+5VMlCBZfoj7ecnkSBTeQpeJT7zXp2eJfXYeBnKdFN4nh38tfTUbYpWXJzAKNFG9bLM51DOpyrCv4wMcXPzAF4OYtoCi0RmRpnsIqsKxW+w2AsvlFBxZwqhJC2DJS7HT7WvHIp8TPx5tPQcgy9eaeenaT+/4Jho8f5XQ9zBzW6Q== Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Mon, 06 Jul 2026 00:34:30 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 3885 invoked by uid 111); 6 Jul 2026 00:34:29 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Sun, 05 Jul 2026 20:34:29 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2026 20:34:29 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Patrick Steinhardt , git@vger.kernel.org, Karthik Nayak Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] format-patch: fix leak of rev_info in prepare_bases() Message-ID: <20260706003429.GD2301945@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20260630063944.GA3733670@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20260630064301.GB3733961@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20260701081358.GB813310@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20260701084733.GA814472@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20260702085821.GC481298@coredump.intra.peff.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Fri, Jul 03, 2026 at 01:45:15PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Patrick Steinhardt writes: > > >> Likewise I find the dual clang/gcc jobs to be overkill. Compiling with > >> both is useful, as they have different warnings. But have we ever seen a > >> case where running the tests showed a different result with different > >> compilers? > > > > Not that I'd know of. As you say, I think it makes sense to use > > different compilers in general. But I don't really think we need to have > > this as a full "compiler x tests" matrix. > > Very true. Different configurations with TEST-vars are great > combination to test, but we are not in the business of hunting bugs > in clang/gcc so we long as they compile (instead of warning "hey, > that construct gives you undefined behaviour"), we shouldn't have to > run the test suite with the same configuration for both. I don't care about finding bugs in clang vs gcc. I'm more concerned with a case where we have undefined behavior, both compile it fine, but the bad behavior is revealed in the tests only by one of them. I can think offhand of only one case where I saw that happen[1]. IIRC it had to do with integer sizes being passed to a variadic function. But it also changed behavior within the same compiler using different optimization levels. So it feels like kind of a scattershot way of trying to flush out UB, and we are probably better off with UBSan and friends. -Peff [1] I mentioned it in: https://lore.kernel.org/git/20251130134625.GA199421@coredump.intra.peff.net/ but didn't give enough details for it to be useful here. I mention it merely as the only anecdote I could call to mind. :)