Re: [RFC/PATCH v1 0/4] compat/obstack: update from upstream

From: Ramsay Jones <ramsay@ramsayjones.plus.com>
Date: Jun 14, 2019, 20:30 UTC
Message-ID: <bd955bb3-626e-345d-550e-562027c2f7e6@ramsayjones.plus.com>
In-Reply-To: <20190614100059.13540-1-szeder.dev@gmail.com>

On 14/06/2019 11:00, SZEDER Gábor wrote:

Show 21 quoted lines

> Update 'compat/obstack.{c,h}' from upstream, because they already use
> 'size_t' instead of 'long' in places that might eventually end up as
> an argument to malloc(), which might solve build errors with GCC 8 on
> Windows.
> 
> The first patch just imports from upstream and doesn't modify anything
> at all, and, consequently, it can't be compiled because of a screenful
> or two of errors.  This is bad for future bisects, of course.
> 
> OTOH, adding all the necessary build fixes right away makes review
> harder...
> 
> I'm not sure how to deal with this situation, so here is a series with
> the fixes in separate patches for review, for now.  If there's an
> agreement that this is the direction to take, then I'll squash in the
> fixes in the first patch and touch up the resulting commit message.
> 
> 
> Ramsay, could you please run sparse on top of these patch series to
> make sure that I caught and converted all "0 instead of NULL" usages
> in the last patch?  Thanks.

I applied your patches to current master (@0aae918dd9) and, since you dropped the final hunk of commit 3254310863 ("obstack.c: Fix some sparse warnings", 2011-09-11), sparse complains, thus:

  $ diff sp-out sp-out1
  27a28,30
  > compat/obstack.c:331:5: warning: incorrect type in initializer (different modifiers)
  > compat/obstack.c:331:5:    expected void ( *[addressable] [toplevel] obstack_alloc_failed_handler )( ... )
  > compat/obstack.c:331:5:    got void ( [noreturn] * )( ... )
  $

So, yes you did catch all "using plain integer as NULL pointer" warnings! :-D

Thanks.

ATB, Ramsay Jones