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