Re: [PATCH 5/6] hash-object: add another >4GB/LLP64 test case
- From
Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
- Date
- Jun 16, 2026, 14:48 UTC
- Message-ID
- <7e465b04-f49f-338f-938f-7ffdd0626c86@gmx.de>
- In-Reply-To
- <ai-5ZvDgc4smGfGc@pks.im>
Hi Patrick,
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
Show 18 quoted lines
> On Thu, Jun 04, 2026 at 05:15:11PM +0000, Philip Oakley via GitGitGadget wrote:
> > diff --git a/t/t1007-hash-object.sh b/t/t1007-hash-object.sh
> > index 59efee3aff..f2722380ee 100755
> > --- a/t/t1007-hash-object.sh
> > +++ b/t/t1007-hash-object.sh
> > @@ -277,4 +277,12 @@ test_expect_success EXPENSIVE,SIZE_T_IS_64BIT,!LONG_IS_64BIT \
> > test_cmp expect actual
> > '
> >
> > +test_expect_success EXPENSIVE,SIZE_T_IS_64BIT,!LONG_IS_64BIT \
> > + 'files over 4GB hash correctly' '
> > + { test -f big || test-tool genzeros $((5*1024*1024*1024)) >big; } &&
> > + test_oid large5GB >expect &&
> > + git hash-object -- big >actual &&
> > + test_cmp expect actual
> > +'
>
> Same comment here.[Comment was the suggestion to drop the !LONG_IS_64BIT prerequisite]
Same comment here. [My reply: Good point!]
> Nit: I feel like we could've easily introduced all of these tests in the > first commit.
Sure, but I actually liked the structuring by Philip when I accepted the patches into Git for Windows, and I still do: The commits all have slightly different concerns, and I love that the cognitive load is lightened somewhat by keeping those concerns in separate patches with separate commit messages.
Ciao, Johannes