Re: [PATCH] Don't rely on unspecified behavior

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Jul 28, 2007, 20:17 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0707282116390.14781@racer.site>
In-Reply-To: <20070728194306.GA32203@fencepost.gnu.org>

Hi,

On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Thomas Schwinge wrote:

Show 13 quoted lines

> On Sat, Jul 28, 2007 at 08:30:07PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> > On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> > > Calling access(p, m) with p == NULL is not specified, so don't do that.  On
> > > GNU/Hurd systems doing so will result in a SIGSEGV.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Schwinge <tschwinge@gnu.org>
> > > ---
> > 
> > Isn't this the same patch as you sent before?
> 
> As I wrote in <20070728182542.GA22651@fencepost.gnu.org>: ``I noticed
> that the patch I sent was prepared for an old version of the file.  I'll
> send an updated patch that applies to the current revision.''

Ah.

Show 5 quoted lines

> > > +		if (excludes_file != NULL && !access(excludes_file, R_OK))
> > 
> > We usually omit the "!= NULL"; see the other source code in git.git.
> 
> Okay, so I should sent a thusly modified version to get it applied?

I don't think that is necessary; a small change like this is usually fixed by Junio with --amend.

Ciao, Dscho