Tomi Ollila <tomi.ollila@iki.fi> writes: > On Wed, Jun 17 2026, Dick Marinus wrote: > >> It's recommended to store these functions in a const struct, for some >> reason I even got a segmentation fault without this. > > The change looks sane (I also checked all references to reply_to_map in > code). With this the array does not need to create on-the-fly in that > function but can (even) be created to read-only location at compile-time > (barring binding to dynamic libs when program starts but still > mpu-protected...) > > But about the commit message. Who recommends this thing? you? god? > deepseek? someone(tm)? Looks somewhat vague statement to me. > > Then the sigsegv - I don't see why the code before that change would > sigsegv. Without more details so that it could be reproduced such > a statement should not be mentioned in commit message. I think this is probably the bug discussed in https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=125252 https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1135526 https://nmbug.notmuchmail.org/nmweb/show/87pl3e2nvl.fsf%40tethera.net (more information in the first link). I did not see anywhere in the bug log (but maybe I missed it) that the code was actually wrong. If we do decide to make the change to work around a gcc bug, we should be clear about that. _______________________________________________ notmuch mailing list -- notmuch@notmuchmail.org To unsubscribe send an email to notmuch-leave@notmuchmail.org