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 67986204C18 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2025 17:40:27 +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=1741974029; cv=none; b=XQH0n5KbLVAIfg+CZ2o9Tw7bvgfYs90MsrSK7TZn5RKnPIAT8Uul5Pq07TK0F3H4BmWM6CZgPDSoRIV3F1TSime0ZTYAGdQzXZrkwlKzJa1nbenlrrvdVQCcExxkg/dGz60wXYXngbkKekEFbOo9oHKY5RYxc0sjCQ3/qhD8ln0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1741974029; c=relaxed/simple; bh=pFNBqBnyaWc/nrURPfE3l9qY688Omr43y1y1ztmUycA=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=QU9+8iZ8VsbyZcu206Enkc+z6yqqjT9zROel5WO7vQM6P/6qZRydwzBPVM9uCY0vM2CgAr0gXof1Hze4OYgNpaujIDcjfMzjCBGOt75hSKRRZBGFGRkhAy7C7I4yqVFc5bC4I656BoODZkDurVuCftfgdoS327j/0nZclsT6/kY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=O/9obzGC; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=uQ3raw/F; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.144 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="O/9obzGC"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="uQ3raw/F" Received: from phl-compute-10.internal (phl-compute-10.phl.internal [10.202.2.50]) by mailfout.phl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EBA71382DEA; Fri, 14 Mar 2025 13:40:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-frontend-01 ([10.202.2.160]) by phl-compute-10.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 14 Mar 2025 13:40:26 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pobox.com; 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=fm3; t=1741974026; x=1742060426; bh=ljhmqOrs3k Ykv2PcFCwC/QiwDCb/x7htvfkGlmBeIik=; b=O/9obzGCv3d7na0pm/S+a7P3Du Q2qpYnrQNHVKSZ88kTRXQngg92S40y0FFgLRrZadD61vm6JcyC1qHQ5pwvaCbJ2X Jxq/439VhNDoUavwD2OKiTg9c2uJut50k8qu3bVKmhoGsq54yqR4/mzOKTEImW0M AFOG26dklyRucWSz1SGHf/8D1V2qxrRhNrpoJHrhHo9csii3f6KgAsTasnk3ELh4 S+Rv/K03oHoykzPwmq4PHBW86vi6nWQ6LRNb1swP5N6eoz7nGcqPFEBsnf+wioRK 0Fk+5v3hhhKewkAxWz74Z4AUPfVWQ10JQ87cUdHngZiGaK0Yb84zQPqBpsQw== 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=fm1; t= 1741974026; x=1742060426; bh=ljhmqOrs3kYkv2PcFCwC/QiwDCb/x7htvfk GlmBeIik=; b=uQ3raw/FtKQglIpTHXPHcKdW3ryowy9AlqIEoOx+h1QCtxoQFcG Gc168kpAxL3tSfc+bEuSXPHA/RTnUlD5P1s9zOFLFJf/paf0pXSWkKMY8dNsyvDO OazYshl4gJUDZxnPUrRJV3JBGvqwozm86ubxRei6R2xulw3qHH9N8BqHypT5Oj/G EKOYWVr3v8jh1IofEWSqaZHqZQUm7AqCrJ+JcM5bG/3PS5E/C/YdnOFf4Atmkfup rlFdHPONtOYe5Ge+r76m+gyTVblXmIxm7LDMve76y23S7BiDh+Kr9fk+cUmr6s7V jd4lVm6Omh4ecWKQKBCbgTv+Afuo1JbYljA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeefvddrtddtgddufedugeehucetufdoteggodetrf dotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdggtfgfnhhsuhgsshgtrhhisggv pdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpih gvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujfgurhephffvvefujghffffkfgggtgesthdtredttder tdenucfhrhhomheplfhunhhiohcuvecujfgrmhgrnhhouceoghhithhsthgvrhesphhosg hogidrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepfefgvdefudetudekteetveehiefgvddt jefftdekfeejffeghffggfeggeeffeetnecuffhomhgrihhnpehmrghkrdguvghvnecuve hluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepghhithhsthgv rhesphhosghogidrtghomhdpnhgspghrtghpthhtohepjedpmhhouggvpehsmhhtphhouh htpdhrtghpthhtohepphgvfhhfsehpvghffhdrnhgvthdprhgtphhtthhopehkrghrthhh ihhkrddukeeksehgmhgrihhlrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepghhithesvhhgvghrrdhkvg hrnhgvlhdrohhrghdprhgtphhtthhopehpshesphhkshdrihhmpdhrtghpthhtohepjhhl thhosghlvghrsehgmhgrihhlrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepphhhihhllhhiphdrfihooh guuddvfeesghhmrghilhdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehgihhtshhtvghrsehpohgsohig rdgtohhm X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: if26b431b:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Fri, 14 Mar 2025 13:40:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: Karthik Nayak , git@vger.kernel.org, ps@pks.im, jltobler@gmail.com, phillip.wood123@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] config.mak.dev: enable -Wunreachable-code In-Reply-To: (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Fri, 14 Mar 2025 10:27:47 -0700") References: <20250305-245-partially-atomic-ref-updates-v3-0-0c64e3052354@gmail.com> <20250305-245-partially-atomic-ref-updates-v3-6-0c64e3052354@gmail.com> <20250307195057.GA3675279@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20250307225444.GA42758@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20250308032309.GA584028@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20250310160440.GA26189@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20250314161010.GA8522@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20250314161347.GA9440@coredump.intra.peff.net> Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2025 10:40:24 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Junio C Hamano writes: > Jeff King writes: > >> -- >8 -- >> Subject: [PATCH] run-command: use errno to check for sigfillset() error >> >> Since enabling -Wunreachable-code, builds with clang on macOS now fail, >> complaining that the die_errno() call in: >> >> if (sigfillset(&all)) >> die_errno("sigfillset"); >> >> is unreachable. On that platform the manpage documents that sigfillset() >> always returns success, and presumably the implementation is a macro or >> inline function that does so in a way that is transparent to the >> compiler. > > Would it work to instead do this here > ... I forgot to say a more important thing. Between the "let's excempt developers on macOS" and the "let's see how far we can go with the warning turned on everywhere and wack-a-mole this particular one with errno check" patches, I prefer the latter at least for a short term. Thanks.