Hi, On Thu, 25 Apr 2019, SZEDER Gábor wrote: > On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 05:49:01PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 12:58:31AM -0700, Denton Liu wrote: > > > > compat/mingw.c | 2 +- > > > compat/mingw.h | 6 +- > > > compat/nedmalloc/malloc.c.h | 6 +- > > > compat/obstack.h | 14 +- > > > compat/poll/poll.h | 2 +- > > > compat/regex/regex.h | 66 ++--- > > > compat/win32/pthread.h | 8 +- > > > > We sometimes avoid touching compat/ code for style issues because it's > > copied from elsewhere. And diverging from upstream is more evil than a > > pure style issue. So potentially we could drop these hunks (though I > > think maybe mingw is our own thing?). > > > > > contrib/coccinelle/noextern.cocci | 6 + > > > > I have mixed feelings on this cocci script. > > I have actual bad experience with this :) > > v4 of this patch series excluded 'compat/' from the conversion, but > the semantic patch is applied to 'compat/' all the same, resulting in > failed CI builds because of the four 'extern's in 'compat/obstack.h', > and will continue to do so. Is it not possible to exclude certain directories for certain semantic patches? I guess we could also simply declare that *all* Coccinelle patches should leave `compat/` alone, on the basis that those files are likely coming from some sort of upstream. But then, `compat/mingw.c` and `compat/win32/` seem not to fall into that category... Ciao, Dscho
