From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90D68C433E7 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 16:12:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37C2B2225D for ; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 16:12:36 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="hNH7O28C" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2389618AbgJIQMf (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Oct 2020 12:12:35 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com ([173.228.157.52]:57649 "EHLO pb-smtp20.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2389144AbgJIQMf (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Oct 2020 12:12:35 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AB7EFF026; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 12:12:34 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=UPBwEZzKOj4Y7Xo3+dVOMIDrI0E=; b=hNH7O2 8CAw2N4FhXWMf3mFJdQYkfcgn/oGxeqyy6RV1mX/FJJFV9dZQUbSQSrzZ61wzzMA Fg0sF7PLaqclXiDU0v1/UzBRiRHLwCPJbfOSTXv/596sF1uLd6pv5J6etyCTq0jn Iv1tn+h8muWtwQ9wRzVIiPU635gZCzBaEcDtA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=nYmVegE9QLzvZW+rCaa8YdWbXJovc0qE qIrHV2nVIOhCUc6KF5LanllpCO8e6Y+mIAq74Xr9AccPsrqagY2KIkYAvAz+av0I x5VRHCejRLFefOSihKj8la9xibZDfzjRfYeedSwacvlUbLp2nE///90eukqmbv8D +TIoqd6J+o8= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EF56FF025; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 12:12:34 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.119.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9261CFF022; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 12:12:31 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Johannes Schindelin Cc: Denton Liu , Git Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH] Makefile: ASCII-sort += lists References: <20201009014528.GA1314@generichostname> Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2020 09:12:29 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Johannes Schindelin's message of "Fri, 9 Oct 2020 12:51:11 +0200 (CEST)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 3C0B8A9C-0A4A-11EB-A670-E43E2BB96649-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Johannes Schindelin writes: >> > -BASIC_CFLAGS += -fsanitize=$(SANITIZE) -fno-sanitize-recover=$(SANITIZE) >> > BASIC_CFLAGS += -fno-omit-frame-pointer >> > +BASIC_CFLAGS += -fsanitize=$(SANITIZE) -fno-sanitize-recover=$(SANITIZE) >> > ifneq ($(filter undefined,$(SANITIZERS)),) >> > BASIC_CFLAGS += -DSHA1DC_FORCE_ALIGNED_ACCESS >> > endif >> > -- snap -- >> >> I opted to exclude this hunk because it didn't seem like a list that >> should be sorted. Perhaps if we include this in the static-analysis >> script, we could define a whitelist of lists that we want to keep >> sorted? > > I agree, modulo s/whitelist/allow list/. If we were to do this, I agree that explicitly enumerating "lists whose elements must be sorted" would be a much better approach than declaring that our lists by default must be sorted and have a list of "lists whose elements are sorted in an order that has meaning, not just by codepoints". But I somehow find the use of allow-list (as a concept [*1*]) awkward in this context. Technically, a list of things whose sortedness we care about may be "allowed to be automatically modified", and the remainder would be "forbidden from getting touched". But both are quite awkward way to think about them. It would become even more awkward if the list is going to be used in a make target whose name has "check" in it, in which case the target would only point out problem so that the user can fix, and at that point, the said list would become a list of things that are "allowed to be checked". [Footnote] *1* ... not the phrase---I do not care in what color the allowed things are painted.