From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ramsay Jones Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] grep.c: mark private file-scope symbols as static Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 21:43:16 +0100 Message-ID: <505B7FE4.1050706@ramsay1.demon.co.uk> References: <5054AA62.2040603@ramsay1.demon.co.uk> <1347743452-2487-1-git-send-email-gitster@pobox.com> <1347743452-2487-5-git-send-email-gitster@pobox.com> <505A08A1.1080303@ramsay1.demon.co.uk> <7vfw6dg2q6.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Sep 20 22:46:09 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TEndL-00036D-3E for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 22:46:03 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754023Ab2ITUpw (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Sep 2012 16:45:52 -0400 Received: from mdfmta004.mxout.tbr.inty.net ([91.221.168.45]:41918 "EHLO smtp.demon.co.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753894Ab2ITUpw (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Sep 2012 16:45:52 -0400 Received: from mdfmta004.tbr.inty.net (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mdfmta004.tbr.inty.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94D42A0C07F; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 21:45:49 +0100 (BST) Received: from mdfmta004.tbr.inty.net (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mdfmta004.tbr.inty.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA68CA0C073; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 21:45:48 +0100 (BST) Received: from [193.237.126.196] (unknown [193.237.126.196]) by mdfmta004.tbr.inty.net (Postfix) with ESMTP; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 21:45:47 +0100 (BST) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0 In-Reply-To: <7vfw6dg2q6.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> X-MDF-HostID: 9 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Junio C Hamano wrote: > Ramsay Jones writes: > >> Heh, so I obviously didn't see this before sending the patch yesterday! :-D >> >> Yes, this solves the problem addressed by yesterday's patch, so please >> ignore that. However, this tickles sparse to complain as well ... ;-) >> >> New patch on it's way. > > Are you sure the patch you are responding to really "tickles > sparse"? Yes. > You have another grep.c patch timestamped two minutes after the > message I am responding to, and as far as I can see, it is a subset > of the patch you are responding to with the message I am responding > to. Hmm, that sentence has too many twists for me! :-D Let me see if I can clear up the misunderstanding: - the "patch from yesterday" (18-09-2021) fixed a complaint from sparse regarding symbol 'dump_grep_expression'. This was before I had seen this patch email, or the resulting commit 07a7d656. Since my "patch from yesterday" is a strict subset of your patch, then your patch also fixes the complaint from sparse regarding the 'dump_grep_expression' symbol. - this patch (commit 07a7d656) causes sparse to complain about the symbols 'grep_source_load' and 'grep_source_is_binary'. The new patch from me ("timestamped two minutes after ...") also titled "grep.c: Fix some sparse warnings" on 19-09-2012 at 7:04 PM, is *not* a subset of commit 07a7d656. This patch addresses the new sparse warnings regarding 'grep_source_load' and 'grep_source_is_binary'. Hopefully that addresses the confusion! ;-) HTH ATB, Ramsay Jones