Re: [PATCH 3/6] hash algorithms: use size_t for section lengths

> On Thu, Jun 04, 2026 at 05:15:09PM +0000, Philip Oakley via GitGitGadget wrote:
> > diff --git a/object-file.c b/object-file.c
> > index 1f5f9daf24..c648cecd80 100644
> > --- a/object-file.c
> > +++ b/object-file.c
> > @@ -581,7 +581,7 @@ static void write_object_file_prepare(const struct git_hash_algo *algo,
> >  	/* Generate the header */
> >  	*hdrlen = format_object_header(hdr, *hdrlen, type, len);
> >  
> > -	/* Sha1.. */
> > +	/* Hash (function pointers) computation */
> >  	hash_object_body(algo, &c, buf, len, oid, hdr, hdrlen);
> >  }
> >  
> 
> Thanks for updating this comment while at it :)

> > diff --git a/t/t1007-hash-object.sh b/t/t1007-hash-object.sh
> > index 7867fd1dbf..10382a815e 100755
> > --- a/t/t1007-hash-object.sh
> > +++ b/t/t1007-hash-object.sh
> > @@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ test_expect_success '--stdin outside of repository (uses default hash)' '
> >  	test_cmp expect actual
> >  '
> >  
> > -test_expect_failure EXPENSIVE,SIZE_T_IS_64BIT,!LONG_IS_64BIT \
> > +test_expect_success EXPENSIVE,SIZE_T_IS_64BIT,!LONG_IS_64BIT \
> >  		'files over 4GB hash literally' '
> >  	test-tool genzeros $((5*1024*1024*1024)) >big &&
> >  	test_oid large5GB >expect &&
> 
> Previously we required `!LONG_IS_64BIT`, because the test would have
> succeeded on platforms where it is 64 bit wide. But now that this test
> works on all platforms I rather wonder whether we should completely drop
> that prerequisite here, as we expect it to pass regardless of whether or
> not long is 64 bit now.