From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fout-a1-smtp.messagingengine.com (fout-a1-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.144]) (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 792D43BE17C for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2026 05:57:45 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.144 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783317467; cv=none; b=Ff8yAy5ngKdKQSIhkz3XVsW6lSdqBqDLeaae0OB/4TggWG6B8orzvNWnLglB2N3v9kJeHQfVj4L1GnsIpyA342SK53gc8pF09tjEPApBYsKBu71T7fZLO0XkjxDIESKbEW/DTni6JwoJbt7839/zOKsZpBrg/MWnU5mFKwGt7Wc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783317467; c=relaxed/simple; bh=AQ+EgTUZhnM9x0TMP5fFt6+oj8NmmlYk6YsyxFGBVVQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=iPYIJUXpolIfGIgYamL+KK67YcTemueAztWgcU11PWrDzuW7AI/MpxxwBNZSzCd3I1zasp192op9Rcnyjcef7vJAJlO3Idvsm0ipdax5LuwqA7dCxttB6p/JMjWb2U+464G7g0CaZbX2spOPbicK+OEwAv2/IfjgTctcMwMGpEA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=pks.im; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pks.im; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pks.im header.i=@pks.im header.b=Fgk06h8H; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=TAXd0GCP; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.144 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=pks.im Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pks.im Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pks.im header.i=@pks.im header.b="Fgk06h8H"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="TAXd0GCP" Received: from phl-compute-02.internal (phl-compute-02.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailfout.phl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61EC4EC018C; Mon, 6 Jul 2026 01:57:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-frontend-03 ([10.202.2.162]) by phl-compute-02.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 06 Jul 2026 01:57:44 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pks.im; h=cc:cc :content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm2; t=1783317464; x=1783403864; bh=/DjqaU3UMo FA5uRDq+K8K+haj8F3ADrvG8FCP32a4PI=; b=Fgk06h8HROe1bbWK+jcwyxPWls 10CKVRCPnZ3uc+oBuzkyoC30507mq2wrnmH7dWMnCcY+mP7w2QATdEVTBAUJidGc kqsTLBKneBUw6jLY42i7kF6sqPU89SNDzovWS8OTdKdV/Fy6cU4G/f/WQYXrtAKS Fp4TPMIQVrKsOKlz2OMRembzSlFXgiUrvWZ7vA2UdbuWPu71BUndL7gBcU+2Z1mN J4i/R+EQac851oKvV2sNiQB8CPAKpzh6CiuQCBwHuv4omTG8EBolzrRQHFdvD/qF jZB9wUUro7wIh1wdMOXWkEy3oXA5eOKKnA5ARRiOI9THIoNXPl1L1Lo4VBCQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; t= 1783317464; x=1783403864; bh=/DjqaU3UMoFA5uRDq+K8K+haj8F3ADrvG8F CP32a4PI=; b=TAXd0GCPd7sfsMm1vs1poFzPvVPghBGhUWrGF7URBOJORYAtI4s 9D0l2Y7I6sOIeoszBHZ/Y96T8xA0j9D9zIGtL1E5z55KaVb87DOPHKDZkcknWJ/7 SoLK+oN5rl/MEahvzJkNnHZtqBYdcbMWXHsUNh9xwvW271kr+Awi6WwqTAqUbKLa +tZD2jOBX2xrT2u3FUmwld78nU6dsh2eePHd+v7sJGrhAU5DS/g4AtxB+d9mRkRr WY6bE41+I8Le8e1DYtX1mF1kOJaVD4pF/Uxs/SI6kCtvfcrMzkaCOVnNUSpUFz7f q3B/ghORg3IyX8/5lRU5TtuoyinRhUxke9Q== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: dmFkZTFieY/5t03mFmW0kMrzxbCkgoTnxfyF6w1DY0yJxTxaQpPdLlH0dNHPbWVDCebm8e Lx8NY1eErYNp7JyYenERgFVGZjUYJn7+cMms+r+d5zHhuGR1jqIgq9HpXNWJvE697s1V7B Dv9PV9nBomXQ7r8j6DKLL0HbFm7bevMpQ5o3LoLkdTvnh4175bdMKSY6idcpDI1ukTJpOk nK3AcZSwl8YYf068DsbqtQKSOCqC2OLfBRsg1vFrWVP8EHyfLKSxMjJC7e1Fs83djNK+wx FAZbMFXnv8kqI0L/Le0ADLffh26562rlg5dq2VMjSyoaA7fCzWLDzzHr+0QgNqlXlz4xFQ YDgnTtYeyWoMWAglRF7N8aAa0Y/Vg3GVScKCWCLYkShmfT4jrhcYfJQnYNurNI70uQX1wY F/UOwlIG4Tg+o0/LdsF+NBfWY2rpvL9g+c7zTBYAjB13vBX+3YqqouZ+phI2j2y+MXCO+W Bx9lRXnl4mNHyNIP9715e3T6rRyUbii+puU+QrIh+q1SrHMvjs9iqIeBh4NiCY3n99EL3u 0AFreVMSDZ2oaHZJXuP+X2lpp7D0jLTdgIaJe0EqKjHr5d9NLmt5d3LgnMkxv9AOBSRTqc zFgcJx2bDsqvcfKj0dA9Z2PBmkBk1D5w8nzLTPGr8UoXvqan9jfcoTk8oN0g X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i197146af:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Mon, 6 Jul 2026 01:57:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id f7d3f809 (TLSv1.3:TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256:NO); Mon, 6 Jul 2026 05:57:40 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2026 07:57:37 +0200 From: Patrick Steinhardt To: Jeff King Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org, Karthik Nayak Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] format-patch: fix leak of rev_info in prepare_bases() Message-ID: References: <20260630064301.GB3733961@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20260701081358.GB813310@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20260701084733.GA814472@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20260702085821.GC481298@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20260706003429.GD2301945@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=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260706003429.GD2301945@coredump.intra.peff.net> On Sun, Jul 05, 2026 at 08:34:29PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > 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. Yes, I just wanted to say that UBSan is definitely the better way to go in this context. I have no idea of course whether it would have catched the mentioned issue, though. And even so, we'd have at least one job that runs all tests with either of the compilers, so we'd still notice issues like that. Patrick