On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 02:40:31PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > > > And here's the fix. > > I was tempted to suggest the change in your patch. > > With ebec842 (run-command: prettify -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE workaround, > 2011-03-16) reverted, I still don't get complaints from -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE > for run-command.c (but I do get "ignoring return value of 'fwrite' from > many places). Perhaps the kinds of checks done by versions of gcc you, > Jonathan and I use are different. I don't use _FORTIFY_SOURCE at all, so I have no clue. I just saw that the code in ebec842 is obviously wrong, and the fix looked equally obvious. > I'd rather revert it for now; I don't want to see patch ping-pong at this > late in the pre-release cycle. That's your call, but the fix seems dead simple to me. _FORTIFY_SOURCE likes the conditional, according to Jonathan's patch. We don't remove the conditional, just the wrong "non-zero is an error" assumption. So I wouldn't expect any ping-pong on it, but then again, it looked like a pretty innocuous patch in the first place, and held a pretty nasty and surprising bug. :) -Peff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html