* jc/test-modernization:
t7101-reset-empty-subdirs: modernize test format
t6050-replace: modernize test format
t5306-pack-nobase: modernize test format
t5303-pack-corruption-resilience: modernize test format
t5301-sliding-window: modernize test format
t5300-pack-object: modernize test format
t4206-log-follow-harder-copies: modernize test format
t4202-log: modernize test format
t4004-diff-rename-symlink: modernize test format
t4003-diff-rename-1: modernize test format
t4002-diff-basic: modernize test format
t3903-stash: modernize test format
t3700-add: modernize test format
t3500-cherry: modernize test format
t1006-cat-file: modernize test format
t1002-read-tree-m-u-2way: modernize test format
t1001-read-tree-m-2way: modernize test format
t3210-pack-refs: modernize test format
t0030-stripspace: modernize test format
t0000-basic: modernize test format
Document more pseudo-refs and teach the command line completion
machinery to complete AUTO_MERGE.
* pb/complete-and-document-auto-merge-and-friends:
completion: complete AUTO_MERGE
Documentation: document AUTO_MERGE
git-merge.txt: modernize word choice in "True merge" section
completion: complete REVERT_HEAD and BISECT_HEAD
revisions.txt: document more special refs
revisions.txt: use description list for special refs
Clang's sanitizer implementation seems to work better than GCC's.
* jk/ci-use-clang-for-sanitizer-jobs:
ci: drop linux-clang job
ci: run ASan/UBSan in a single job
ci: use clang for ASan/UBSan checks
Code clean-up.
* ps/fetch-cleanups:
fetch: use `fetch_config` to store "submodule.fetchJobs" value
fetch: use `fetch_config` to store "fetch.parallel" value
fetch: use `fetch_config` to store "fetch.recurseSubmodules" value
fetch: use `fetch_config` to store "fetch.showForcedUpdates" value
fetch: use `fetch_config` to store "fetch.pruneTags" value
fetch: use `fetch_config` to store "fetch.prune" value
fetch: pass through `fetch_config` directly
fetch: drop unneeded NULL-check for `remote_ref`
fetch: drop unused DISPLAY_FORMAT_UNKNOWN enum value
Some atoms that can be used in "--format=<format>" for "git ls-tree"
were not supported by "git ls-files", even though they were relevant
in the context of the latter.
* zh/ls-files-format-atoms:
ls-files: align format atoms with ls-tree
"git pack-refs" learns "--include" and "--exclude" to tweak the ref
hierarchy to be packed using pattern matching.
* jc/pack-ref-exclude-include:
pack-refs: teach pack-refs --include option
pack-refs: teach --exclude option to exclude refs from being packed
docs: clarify git-pack-refs --all will pack all refs
Doc update.
* sa/doc-ls-remote:
ls-remote doc: document the output format
ls-remote doc: explain what each example does
ls-remote doc: show peeled tags in examples
ls-remote doc: remove redundant --tags example
show-branch doc: say <ref>, not <reference>
show-ref doc: update for internal consistency
The "-s" (silent, squelch) option of the "diff" family of commands
did not interact with other options that specify the output format
well. This has been cleaned up so that it will clear all the
formatting options given before.
* jc/diff-s-with-other-options:
diff: fix interaction between the "-s" option and other options
"git tag" learned to leave the "$GIT_DIR/TAG_EDITMSG" file when the
command failed, so that the user can salvage what they typed.
* kh/keep-tag-editmsg-upon-failure:
tag: keep the message file in case ref transaction fails
t/t7004-tag: add regression test for successful tag creation
doc: tag: document `TAG_EDITMSG`
Its better to document the struct members directly instead of on a
function that takes a pointer to the struct. This will also make it
easier to update the documentation in the future.
Make adjustments for this new context. Also drop “may contain” since we
don’t need to emphasize that a list could be empty.
Suggested-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Kristoffer Haugsbakk <code@khaugsbakk.name>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
`suppress_default_notes` was renamed to `use_default_notes` in
3a03cf6b1d (notes: refactor display notes default handling,
2011-03-29).
The commit message says that “values less than one [indicates] “not
set” ”, but what was meant was probably “less than zero” (the author of
3a03cf6b1d agrees on this point).
Signed-off-by: Kristoffer Haugsbakk <code@khaugsbakk.name>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This is a leak that has existed since the method was first created
in fcb2c0769d (commit-reach: implement get_reachable_subset,
2018-11-02).
Signed-off-by: Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Since the linux-asan-ubsan job runs using clang under Linux, there is
not much point in running a separate clang job. Any errors that a normal
clang compile-and-test cycle would find are likely to be a subset of
what the sanitizer job will find. Since this job takes ~14 minutes to
run in CI, this shaves off some of our CPU load (though it does not
affect end-to-end runtime, since it's typically run in parallel and is
not the longest job).
Technically this provides us with slightly less signal for a given run,
since you won't immediately know if a failure in the sanitizer job is
from using clang or from the sanitizers themselves. But it's generally
obvious from the logs, and anyway your next step would be to fix the
probvlem and re-run CI, since we expect all of these jobs to pass
normally.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
When we started running sanitizers in CI via 1c0962c0c4 (ci: add address
and undefined sanitizer tasks, 2022-10-20), we ran them as two separate
CI jobs, since as that commit notes, the combination "seems to take
forever".
And indeed, it does with gcc. However, since the previous commit
switched to using clang, the situation is different, and we can save
some CPU by using a single job for both. Comparing before/after CI runs,
this saved about 14 minutes (the single combined job took 54m, versus
44m plus 24m for ASan and UBSan jobs, respectively). That's wall-clock
and not CPU, but since our jobs are mostly CPU-bound, the two should be
closely proportional.
This does increase the end-to-end time of a CI run, though, since before
this patch the two jobs could run in parallel, and the sanitizer job is
our longest single job. It also means that we won't get a separate
result for "this passed with UBSan but not with ASan" or vice versa).
But as 1c0962c0c4 noted, that is not a very useful signal in practice.
Below are some more detailed timings of gcc vs clang that I measured by
running the test suite on my local workstation. Each measurement counts
only the time to run the test suite with each compiler (not the compile
time itself). We'll focus on the wall-clock times for simplicity, though
the CPU times follow roughly similar trends.
Here's a run with CC=gcc as a baseline:
real 1m12.931s
user 9m30.566s
sys 8m9.538s
Running with SANITIZE=address increases the time by a factor of ~4.7x:
real 5m40.352s
user 49m37.044s
sys 36m42.950s
Running with SANITIZE=undefined increases the time by a factor of ~1.7x:
real 2m5.956s
user 12m42.847s
sys 19m27.067s
So let's call that 6.4 time units to run them separately (where a unit
is the time it takes to run the test suite with no sanitizers). As a
simplistic model, we might imagine that running them together would take
5.4 units (we save 1 unit because we are no longer running the test
suite twice, but just paying the sanitizer overhead on top of a single
run).
But that's not what happens. Running with SANITIZE=address,undefined
results in a factor of 9.3x:
real 11m9.817s
user 77m31.284s
sys 96m40.454s
So not only did we not get faster when doing them together, we actually
spent 1.5x as much CPU as doing them separately! And while those
wall-clock numbers might not look too terrible, keep in mind that this
is on an unloaded 8-core machine. In the CI environment, wall-clock
times will be much closer to CPU times. So not only are we wasting CPU,
but we risk hitting timeouts.
Now let's try the same thing with clang. Here's our no-sanitizer
baseline run, which is almost identical to the gcc one (which is quite
convenient, because we can keep using the same "time units" to get an
apples-to-apples comparison):
real 1m11.844s
user 9m28.313s
sys 8m8.240s
And now again with SANITIZE=address, we get a 5x factor (so slightly
worse than gcc's 4.7x, though I wouldn't read too much into it; there is
a fair bit of run-to-run noise):
real 6m7.662s
user 49m24.330s
sys 44m13.846s
And with SANITIZE=undefined, we are at 1.5x, slightly outperforming gcc
(though again, that's probably mostly noise):
real 1m50.028s
user 11m0.973s
sys 16m42.731s
So running them separately, our total cost is 6.5x. But if we combine
them in a single run (SANITIZE=address,undefined), we get:
real 6m51.804s
user 52m32.049s
sys 51m46.711s
which is a factor of 5.7x. That's along the lines we'd hoped for!
Running them together saves us almost a whole time unit. And that's not
counting any time spent outside the test suite itself (starting the job,
setting up the environment, compiling) that we're no longer duplicating
by having two jobs.
So clang behaves like we'd hope: the overhead to run the sanitizers is
additive as you add more sanitizers. Whereas gcc's numbers seem very
close to multiplicative, almost as if the sanitizers were enforcing
their overheads on each other (though that is purely a guess on what is
going on; ultimately what matters to us is the amount of time it takes).
And that roughly matches the CI improvement I saw. A "time unit" there
is more like 12 minutes, and the observed time savings was 14 minutes
(with the extra presumably coming from avoiding duplicated setup, etc).
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Both gcc and clang support the "address" and "undefined" sanitizers.
However, they may produce different results. We've seen at least two
real world cases where gcc missed a UBSan problem but clang found it:
1. Clang's UBSan (using clang 14.0.6) found a string index that was
subtracted to "-1", causing an out-of-bounds read (curiously this
didn't trigger ASan, but that may be because the string was in the
argv memory, not stack or heap). Using gcc (version 12.2.0) didn't
find the same problem.
Original thread:
https://lore.kernel.org/git/20230519005447.GA2955320@coredump.intra.peff.net/
2. Clang's UBSan (using clang 4.0.1) complained about pointer
arithmetic with NULL, but gcc at the time did not. This was in
2017, and modern gcc does seem to find the issue, though.
Original thread:
https://lore.kernel.org/git/32a8b949-638a-1784-7fba-948ae32206fc@web.de/
Since we don't otherwise have a particular preference for one compiler
over the other for this test, let's switch to the one that we think may
be more thorough.
Note that it's entirely possible that the two are simply _different_,
and we are trading off problems that gcc would find that clang wouldn't.
However, my subjective and anecdotal experience has been that clang's
sanitizer support is a bit more mature (e.g., I recall other oddities
around leak-checking where clang performed more sensibly).
Obviously running both and cross-checking the results would give us the
best coverage, but that's very expensive to run (and these are already
some of our most expensive CI jobs). So let's use clang as our best
guess, and we can re-evaluate if we get more data points.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The output may become confusing to recognize if the user
accidentally gave an extra opening space, like:
$ git commit --fixup=" 6d6360b67e99c2fd82d64619c971fdede98ee74b"
fatal: could not lookup commit 6d6360b67e99c2fd82d64619c971fdede98ee74b
and it will be better if we surround the %s specifier with single quotes.
Signed-off-by: Teng Long <dyroneteng@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
OpenSSH-9.0 requires a namespace option with `-Y check-novalidate`.
This was added in openssh-portable commit a0b5816f8 (upstream:
ssh-keygen -Y check-novalidate requires namespace or SEGV, 2022-03-18).
The -n option was documented as a required option since check-novalidate
was added in openssh-portable 8aa2aa3cd (upstream: Allow testing
signature syntax and validity without verifying, 2019-09-16).
Signed-off-by: Todd Zullinger <tmz@pobox.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The prereq guard added in 14903c8e92 (trace2 tests: guard pthread test
with "PTHREAD", 2022-11-24) lacks the S in PTHREADS, causing it to never
be satisfied. Fix the spelling of the prereq.
Signed-off-by: Todd Zullinger <tmz@pobox.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
"git ls-files --format" can be used to format the output of
multiple file entries in the index, while "git ls-tree --format"
can be used to format the contents of a tree object. However,
the current set of %(objecttype), "(objectsize)", and
"%(objectsize:padded)" atoms supported by "git ls-files --format"
is a subset of what is available in "git ls-tree --format".
Users sometimes need to establish a unified view between the index
and tree, which can help with comparison or conversion between the two.
Therefore, this patch adds the missing atoms to "git ls-files --format".
"%(objecttype)" can be used to retrieve the object type corresponding
to a file in the index, "(objectsize)" can be used to retrieve the
object size corresponding to a file in the index, and "%(objectsize:padded)"
is the same as "(objectsize)", except with padded format.
Signed-off-by: ZheNing Hu <adlternative@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The pseudoref AUTO_MERGE is documented since the previous commit. To
make it easier to use, let __git_refs in the Bash completion code
complete it.
Signed-off-by: Philippe Blain <levraiphilippeblain@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Since 5291828df8 (merge-ort: write $GIT_DIR/AUTO_MERGE whenever we hit a
conflict, 2021-03-20), when using the 'ort' merge strategy, the special
ref AUTO_MERGE is written when a merge operation results in conflicts.
This ref points to a tree recording the conflicted state of the working
tree and is very useful during conflict resolution. However, this ref is
not documented.
Add some documentation for AUTO_MERGE in git-diff(1), git-merge(1),
gitrevisions(7) and in the user manual.
In git-diff(1), mention it at the end of the description section, when
we mention that the command also accepts trees instead of commits, and
also add an invocation to the "Various ways to check your working tree"
example.
In git-merge(1), add a step to the list of things that happen "when it
is not obvious how to reconcile the changes", under the "True merge"
section. Also mention AUTO_MERGE in the "How to resolve conflicts"
section, when mentioning 'git diff'.
In gitrevisions(7), add a mention of AUTO_MERGE along with the other
special refs.
In the user manual, add a paragraph describing AUTO_MERGE to the
"Getting conflict-resolution help during a merge" section, and include
an example of a 'git diff AUTO_MERGE' invocation for the example
conflict used in that section. Note that for uniformity we do not use
backticks around AUTO_MERGE here since the rest of the document does not
typeset special refs differently.
Closes: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/issues/1471
Signed-off-by: Philippe Blain <levraiphilippeblain@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The "True merge" section of the 'git merge' documentation mentions that
in case of conflicts, the conflicted working tree files contain "the
result of the "merge" program". This probably refers to RCS's 'merge'
program, which is mentioned further down under "How conflicts are
presented".
Since it is not clear at that point of the document which program is
referred to, and since most modern readers probably do not relate to RCS
anyway, let's just write "the merge operation" instead.
Signed-off-by: Philippe Blain <levraiphilippeblain@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The pseudorefs REVERT_HEAD and BISECT_HEAD are not suggested
by the __git_refs function. Add them there.
Signed-off-by: Philippe Blain <levraiphilippeblain@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Some special refs, namely HEAD, FETCH_HEAD, ORIG_HEAD, MERGE_HEAD and
CHERRY_PICK_HEAD, are mentioned and described in 'gitrevisions', but some
others, namely REBASE_HEAD, REVERT_HEAD, and BISECT_HEAD, are not.
Add a small description of these special refs.
Signed-off-by: Philippe Blain <levraiphilippeblain@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The special refs listed in 'gitrevisions' (under the '<refname>' entry)
are on separate lines in the Asciidoc source, but end up as a single
continuous paragraph in the rendered documentation (see e.g. [1]). In
following commits we will mention additional special refs, so to improve
legibility, use a description list such that every entry appears on its
own line. Since we are already in a description list, use ':::' as the
term delimiter.
In order for the new description list to be aligned with the description
under the '<refname>' entry, instead of being aligned with the last
entry of the "in the following rules" nested list, use the "ancestor
list continuation" syntax [2], i.e., leave an empty line before the
continuation '+'. Do the same for the paragraph following the new
description list ("Note that any...").
While at it, also use a continuation '+' before the "in the following
rules" list, for correctness. The parser seems not to care here, but
it's best to keep the sources correct.
[1] https://git-scm.com/docs/gitrevisions#Documentation/gitrevisions.txt-emltrefnamegtemegemmasterememheadsmasterememrefsheadsmasterem
[2] https://docs.asciidoctor.org/asciidoc/latest/lists/continuation/#ancestor-list-continuation
Suggested-by: Victoria Dye <vdye@github.com>
Based-on-patch-by: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
Signed-off-by: Philippe Blain <levraiphilippeblain@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
