From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] git-compat-util: Avoid strcasecmp() being inlined Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 18:05:31 -0400 Message-ID: <20130919220531.GA13723@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <523094F0.9000509@gmail.com> <20130911182921.GE4326@google.com> <20130911191620.GB24251@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20130919211659.GB16556@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Piotr Krukowiecki , Junio C Hamano , Jonathan Nieder , Sebastian Schuberth , Git Mailing List , Karsten Blees To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Sep 20 00:05:46 2013 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 1VMmM5-0002Ci-JT for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 00:05:45 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753781Ab3ISWFm (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Sep 2013 18:05:42 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:38801 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752696Ab3ISWFl (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Sep 2013 18:05:41 -0400 Received: (qmail 7531 invoked by uid 102); 19 Sep 2013 22:05:41 -0000 Received: from c-71-63-4-13.hsd1.va.comcast.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (71.63.4.13) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Thu, 19 Sep 2013 17:05:41 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 19 Sep 2013 18:05:31 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 03:03:46PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> But only when someone compiles on MinGW, no? > > > > Yeah. I think a more clear way to phrase the question would be: is there > > some trick we can use to booby-trap strcasecmp as a function pointer so > > that it fails to compile even on systems where it would otherwise work? > > That line of thought nudges us toward the place Linus explicitly > said he didn't want to see us going, no? We do not particularly > want to care the exact nature of the breakage on MinGW. Do we > really want to set a booby-trap that intimately knows about how > their strcasecmp is broken, and possibly cover breakages of the same > kind but with other functions? Exactly. You snipped my second paragraph, but the gist of it was "...and no, we do not want to go there". Calling it a booby-trap was meant to be derogatory. :) -Peff