From: Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 20:28:34 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] progress: fix progress meters when dealing with lots of work
Message-ID: <20171113122834.20a69d1e87defe95d6e0e8ed@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20171113201600.24878-3-newren@gmail.com>

On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 12:15:58 -0800
Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> wrote:

> The possibility of setting merge.renameLimit beyond 2^16 raises the
> possibility that the values passed to progress can exceed 2^32.
> Use uint64_t, because it "ought to be enough for anybody".  :-)
> 
> Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
> ---
> This does imply 64-bit math for all progress operations.  Possible alternatives
> I could think of listed at
> https://public-inbox.org/git/CABPp-BH1Cpc9UfYpmBBAHWSqadg=QuD=28qx1oV29ZdvF4NbJw@mail.gmail.com/
> Opinions of others on whether 64-bit is okay, or preference for which alternative
> is picked?

I haven't looked into this in much detail, but another alternative to
consider is to use size_t everywhere. This also allows us to use st_add
and st_mult, which checks overflow for us.

Changing progress to use the size_t of the local machine makes sense to
me.