RE: [PATCH v6 08/12] fsmonitor: add a test tool to dump the index extension
- From
Ben Peart <ben.peart@microsoft.com>
- Date
- Sep 18, 2017, 16:28 UTC
- Message-ID
- <MWHPR21MB0478E4671130AD9E19B77460F4630@MWHPR21MB0478.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <6f55efc4-96b2-7c53-7d54-ff5801697550@web.de>
Show 53 quoted lines
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Torsten Bögershausen [mailto:tboegi@web.de]
> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 11:43 AM
> To: Ben Peart <peartben@gmail.com>; Junio C Hamano
> <gitster@pobox.com>; Ben Peart <Ben.Peart@microsoft.com>
> Cc: David.Turner@twosigma.com; avarab@gmail.com;
> christian.couder@gmail.com; git@vger.kernel.org;
> johannes.schindelin@gmx.de; pclouds@gmail.com; peff@peff.net
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 08/12] fsmonitor: add a test tool to dump the index
> extension
>
> On 2017-09-18 15:38, Ben Peart wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 9/17/2017 4:02 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >> Ben Peart <benpeart@microsoft.com> writes:
> >>
> >>> diff --git a/t/helper/test-dump-fsmonitor.c
> >>> b/t/helper/test-dump-fsmonitor.c new file mode 100644 index
> >>> 0000000000..482d749bb9
> >>> --- /dev/null
> >>> +++ b/t/helper/test-dump-fsmonitor.c
> >>> @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
> >>> +#include "cache.h"
> >>> +
> >>> +int cmd_main(int ac, const char **av) {
> >>> + struct index_state *istate = &the_index;
> >>> + int i;
> >>> +
> >>> + setup_git_directory();
> >>> + if (do_read_index(istate, get_index_file(), 0) < 0)
> >>> + die("unable to read index file");
> >>> + if (!istate->fsmonitor_last_update) {
> >>> + printf("no fsmonitor\n");
> >>> + return 0;
> >>> + }
> >>> + printf("fsmonitor last update %"PRIuMAX"\n",
> >>> istate->fsmonitor_last_update);
> >>
> >> After pushing this out and had Travis complain, I queued a squash on
> >> top of this to cast the argument to (uintmax_t), like you did in an
> >> earlier step (I think it was [PATCH 04/12]).
> >>
> >
> > Thanks. I'll update this to cast it as (uint64_t) as that is what
> > get/put_be64 use. As far as I can tell they both map to the same
> > thing (unsigned long long) so there isn't functional difference.
> (Just to double-check): This is the way to print "PRIuMAX" correctly (on all
> platforms):
>
> printf("fsmonitor last update %"PRIuMAX"\n", (uintmax_t)istate-
> >fsmonitor_last_update);
> Should I just make the variable type itself uintmax_t and then just skip the cast altogether? I went with uint64_t because that is what getnanotime returned.