Re: [PATCH] cache-tree: reject entries with null sha1

2017-05-03 Thread René Scharfe
Am 03.05.2017 um 11:46 schrieb Duy Nguyen: On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 2:22 AM, Jeff King wrote: On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 01:23:28PM +0200, René Scharfe wrote: I can only get gcc and clang to call memcpy instead of inlining it by specifying -fno-builtin. Do you use that option? If yes, why? (Jus

Re: [PATCH] cache-tree: reject entries with null sha1

2017-05-03 Thread Duy Nguyen
On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 2:22 AM, Jeff King wrote: > On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 01:23:28PM +0200, René Scharfe wrote: > >> Am 24.04.2017 um 12:39 schrieb Duy Nguyen: >> > BTW, I ran t7009 with valgrind and it reported this. Is it something >> > we should be worried about? I vaguely recall you're doing

Re: [PATCH] cache-tree: reject entries with null sha1

2017-05-01 Thread Jeff King
On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 11:00:58PM +0200, René Scharfe wrote: > Am 01.05.2017 um 21:22 schrieb Jeff King: > > On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 01:23:28PM +0200, René Scharfe wrote: > > > I can only get gcc and clang to call memcpy instead of inlining it by > > > specifying -fno-builtin. Do you use that op

Re: [PATCH] cache-tree: reject entries with null sha1

2017-05-01 Thread René Scharfe
Am 01.05.2017 um 21:22 schrieb Jeff King: On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 01:23:28PM +0200, René Scharfe wrote: I can only get gcc and clang to call memcpy instead of inlining it by specifying -fno-builtin. Do you use that option? If yes, why? (Just curious.) I do my normal edit-compile cycles with

Re: [PATCH] cache-tree: reject entries with null sha1

2017-05-01 Thread Jeff King
On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 01:23:28PM +0200, René Scharfe wrote: > Am 24.04.2017 um 12:39 schrieb Duy Nguyen: > > BTW, I ran t7009 with valgrind and it reported this. Is it something > > we should be worried about? I vaguely recall you're doing something > > with prio-queue... > > > > ==4246== Sourc

Re: [PATCH] cache-tree: reject entries with null sha1

2017-05-01 Thread René Scharfe
Am 01.05.2017 um 13:23 schrieb René Scharfe: But I can't get Valgrind to report overlapping (nicely explained in http://valgrind.org/docs/manual/mc-manual.html#mc-manual.overlap, by the way), not for t7009 and not for the short test program at the bottom. Do you set flags in GIT_VALGRIND_OPTIONS

Re: [PATCH] cache-tree: reject entries with null sha1

2017-05-01 Thread René Scharfe
Am 24.04.2017 um 12:39 schrieb Duy Nguyen: BTW, I ran t7009 with valgrind and it reported this. Is it something we should be worried about? I vaguely recall you're doing something with prio-queue... ==4246== Source and destination overlap in memcpy(0x5952990, 0x5952990, 16) ==4246==at 0x4C2E

Re: [PATCH] cache-tree: reject entries with null sha1

2017-04-24 Thread Jeff King
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 05:39:33PM +0700, Duy Nguyen wrote: > > When merged to pu, this fixes the existing test breakage in t7009 when > > GIT_TEST_SPLIT_INDEX is used (because the split index didn't rewrite the > > whole index, "git rm --cached" didn't always barf). > > Latest 'pu' has your patc

Re: [PATCH] cache-tree: reject entries with null sha1

2017-04-24 Thread Duy Nguyen
On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 1:46 AM, Jeff King wrote: > We generally disallow null sha1s from entering the index, > due to 4337b5856 (do not write null sha1s to on-disk index, > 2012-07-28). However, we loosened that in 83bd7437c > (write_index: optionally allow broken null sha1s, > 2013-08-27) so tha

[PATCH] cache-tree: reject entries with null sha1

2017-04-21 Thread Jeff King
We generally disallow null sha1s from entering the index, due to 4337b5856 (do not write null sha1s to on-disk index, 2012-07-28). However, we loosened that in 83bd7437c (write_index: optionally allow broken null sha1s, 2013-08-27) so that tools like filter-branch could be used to repair broken his