From: Jeff Hostetler <git@jeffhostetler.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 18:33:04 GMT
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 0/8] rebase-interactive
Message-ID: <3d845e99-e392-a62f-b83e-33b58482fc54@jeffhostetler.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqd0zqd8dw.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>



On 3/26/2018 2:00 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff Hostetler <git@jeffhostetler.com> writes:
> 
>> I am concerned that the above compiler error message says that uintmax_t
>> is defined as an "unsigned long" (which is defined as *at least* 32 bits,
>> but not necessarily 64.  But a uint64_t is defined as a "unsigned long long"
>> and guaranteed as a 64 bit value.
> 
> On a platform whose uintmax_t is u32, is it realistic to expect that
> we would be able to use u64, even if we explicitly ask for it, in
> the first place?
> 
> In other words, on a platform that handles uint64_t, I would expect
> uintmax_t to be wide enough to hold an uint64_t value without
> truncation.
> 

I was just going by what the reported compiler error message was.
It said that "unsigned long" didn't match the uint64_t variable.
And that made me nervous.

If all of the platforms we build on define uintmax_t >= 64 bits,
then it doesn't matter.

If we do have a platform where uintmax_t is u32, then we'll have a
lot more breakage than in just the new function I added.

Thanks,
Jeff