Re: [PATCH 1/9] Convert pack-objects to size_t

From: Martin Koegler <martin.koegler@chello.at>
Date: Aug 16, 2017, 20:22 UTC
Message-ID: <20170816202238.GA3008@mail.zuhause>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqfucuw00a.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 10:08:05AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 6 quoted lines

>    It may help reducing the maintenance if we introduced obj_size_t
>    that is defined to be size_t for now, so that we can later swap
>    it to ofs_t or some larger type when we know we do need to
>    support objects whose size cannot be expressed in size_t, but I
>    do not offhand know what the pros-and-cons with such an approach
>    would look like.

Where should the use of obj_size_t end and the use of size_t start?

We often determine a object size and then pass it to malloc. We would start with a larger datatyp and then truncate for memory allocation, which use size_t.

Regards, Martin