From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (pb-smtp1.pobox.com [64.147.108.70]) (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 582AB7B3DD for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 20:00:33 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.70 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706644834; cv=none; b=SLZ5CBY/VLsBnd4DMDQzm8z2Z47iQb1PrD2vbZMMBaRAg67blAQmdpySRQkx+A+hRsP/b5k84dzGJ5zu2+/TmaHYiQZeQFeqNioQZteQTVHaJ085xU0MCXabnTvzYUkdeTRAHP9yidC1C084j+lGAooQ6kWRibDY/NsAG8CoI/w= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706644834; c=relaxed/simple; bh=1oL8kduk8ZOJMjS6/NGbhyIV5bvxFKnUtKs1arQMx4M=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=fMX8wFTeSzngnw40rTAFkOPzhw5mnoLqGMjPcEPERhFsuqoz6V7pCBZ64SvDp5jX6+NBHz8GCPbEtrn13GzvHlQSaTHClWjBpDAyuUW2fuuvf4la9GRVHuqz8NUOImz8D5jt+DXBY5dNjZUAZFEQG5p0XRcvC7H4hMH+WljeseA= 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 (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=drRR+yAp; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.70 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 (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="drRR+yAp" Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAA331E18E8; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 15:00:26 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=1oL8kduk8ZOJMjS6/NGbhyIV5bvxFKnUtKs1ar QMx4M=; b=drRR+yApKDwa7vd7v/JZPAIRzTb8Hr9F8CTQ54xVcY8aVekWTkYgjy XRXcMA4Ckn32wUxruzkUPY6vEdQLCpo1ufhUSMxRgqs7FGt6FlXpX0gFRT/eKtWj 8V95W+Xs0Y3oQ270RrzZgGwKFnkltiqjdxqhtUmuQo+yinlXt9Vcg= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2DA41E18E7; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 15:00:26 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.200.93]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1352B1E18E6; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 15:00:26 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: =?utf-8?Q?Rub=C3=A9n?= Justo , Git List Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] t0080: mark as leak-free In-Reply-To: <20240130055333.GB166761@coredump.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Tue, 30 Jan 2024 00:53:33 -0500") References: <45eb0748-6415-4e52-a54f-8d4e5ad57dde@gmail.com> <4adfcba4-0f2b-44f5-a312-97f00f979435@gmail.com> <20240130055333.GB166761@coredump.intra.peff.net> Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2024 12:00:24 -0800 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 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 35AD77A0-BFAA-11EE-A49F-78DCEB2EC81B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Jeff King writes: > Setting the flag now just makes sure we continue correctly on that path, > rather than getting surprised near the end of the road that t-basic has > some dumb leak. Plus it avoids the script popping up as a false positive > when checking for scripts which can be marked. Alright. Any such "dumb leak" in the "basic" would hopefully be caught by the real t-$other unit tests exercised under the leak sanitizer, I hope, but it is not worth our time wondering if it makes sense to special case t0080 specifically.