> I think there's a better way to handle this than the one you suggest
Let's not blame Sam for my patch, with its gruesome returning, and hence presumably exporting, of some strdup()d boilerplate to stop the caller from crashing.
> why does this prevent doing any more testing?
I expect he didn't want to make his builds dependent on the first "completely botched fix" some rando
halfheartedly suggested. Said Morton's Gambit has, though, kept me testing the latest code, with nothing further to report. I for one am relieved that Sam made time to tell us that this recent change has bitten
a second code base. Although the minimal reproducer is tiny and probably seems obvious, it took me some hours to extract it from the production code that broke. That might have given me a work around, other than patching make, but I wouldn't wish that extra
work on Sam.