Re: [PATCH] trace2: tolerate failed timestamp formatting

On 7/29/2026 5:35 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Junio C Hamano <[email protected]> writes:
> 
>> Derrick Stolee <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>>> Would it make more sense to fix the xsnprintf()/libintl boundary and
>>>> treat Trace2 reentrancy separately? I still can't explain why the
>>>> allocation failed, so there may be another GfW-specific piece I’m
>>>> missing.
>>>
>>> I think that your suggested change has merits and should be pursued.
>>> I'll explore it a bit to confirm.
>>
>> That band-aid may be a good idea, but I would prefer not to see the
>> conditional in a common source file like 'wrapper.c'.  Somewhere
>> MinGW-specific would be more appropriate, would it not?
> 
> Did anything come out of this discussion?

Sorry that I've been unavailable to come back to this thread, but here
is what I've learned in the meantime:

* Taylor's hunch that the memory allocation is more likely at fault
  is seeming more and more correct. When we fixed this issue, other
  issues around memory allocation came to light.

* For that reason, I'll rework this patch to point at the allocation
  as the likely reason the parsing fails. Avoiding a die() in the
  tracing code is still critical.

* Thus, I'll also replace the xstrdup() in the trace code to avoid a
  die() due to allocation problems.

* I will take a deeper look at this wrapper change and how it might
  be done in a careful way, as Taylor says his patch was an example
  only and not the "right" way to do it.

Thanks,
-Stolee