From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0B2A1F406 for ; Thu, 28 Dec 2017 18:55:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754152AbdL1SzP (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Dec 2017 13:55:15 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:58930 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751220AbdL1SzO (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Dec 2017 13:55:14 -0500 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E57FCA35A; Thu, 28 Dec 2017 13:55:14 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=4QmQvCMpXd0EOoFR1E2X7Jidqv8=; b=GOdGZm tk2lxVEzGjPv3aGFsZw00A9BFSoBHlOwWErhdqFVIim7h3PZPWeSv0vw6EVNj5CW GcTe2+kscqF408Qb2GSI8fQKrZQSNtb8yO6wivT80rfRGldpF+Wzv4CjjT7dLTs9 g8bsi+2goRCWwqv+2jct78ad5OLffOkgoQcTg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=ATv2YfFzu9Mr6em6Wvjz/p+BgvwkE348 Ll0dPKBJlSti6dSGbEXAo57m/ZdtaN/FzZvX5kehnjvw2BePf5UNJvFi5rTsoLck 4rKpl3o1hqQVKX4z1mRPOuC2YKPkjKIpYRVFQfdnHlj1QgW5ypMtdKws6ZTaqyxy rCH6rsjKr8A= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24BF0CA359; Thu, 28 Dec 2017 13:55:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9BACACA358; Thu, 28 Dec 2017 13:55:13 -0500 (EST) From: Junio C Hamano To: Liam Beguin Cc: Duy Nguyen , Git Mailing List , Johannes Schindelin , Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 8/9] rebase -i: learn to abbreviate command names References: <20171127045514.25647-1-liambeguin@gmail.com> <20171203221721.16462-1-liambeguin@gmail.com> <20171203221721.16462-9-liambeguin@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2017 10:55:12 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Liam Beguin's message of "Wed, 27 Dec 2017 22:58:19 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: A2FA1450-EC00-11E7-8799-8EF31968708C-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Liam Beguin writes: > Since this came up, would it be a good thing to add -Wignored-qualifiers > to the DEVELOPER flags? Quite frankly, I am not sure if catching that particular warning violation buys us much. As a return value from a function is never an lvalue, what triggers the warning may certainly be an indication of a sloppy coding, but otherwise I do not see it as diagnosing a potential error. "The programmer thought that the returned value will only be assigned to a const variable and will never be modified, but the language does not guarantee such a behaviour out of the caller"---does such an incorrect expectation lead to an error in the codepath that involves such a function?