Re: [PATCH 7/9] builtin/log: fix remaining -Wsign-compare warnings
- From
Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>
- Date
- Dec 27, 2024, 13:57 UTC
- Message-ID
- <Z26yPlLMlxyecZVk@pks.im>
- In-Reply-To
- <Z26p9GJbmyUd6bG-@ArchLinux>
On Fri, Dec 27, 2024 at 09:21:56PM +0800, shejialuo wrote:
Show 10 quoted lines
> On Fri, Dec 27, 2024 at 11:46:27AM +0100, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > > @@ -717,14 +715,14 @@ static int show_tag_object(const struct object_id *oid, struct rev_info *rev) > > unsigned long size; > > enum object_type type; > > char *buf = repo_read_object_file(the_repository, oid, &type, &size); > > - int offset = 0; > > + unsigned long offset = 0; > > Why here we use `unsigned long`, is this a special situation where we > cannot use `size_t`?
Mostly because other variables already use `unsigned long` here, including `repo_read_object_file()`. So given that our object layer doesn't support `size_t` it wouldn't make sense to use it for the offset, either.
Show 21 quoted lines
> >
> > if (!buf)
> > return error(_("could not read object %s"), oid_to_hex(oid));
> >
> > assert(type == OBJ_TAG);
> > while (offset < size && buf[offset] != '\n') {
> > - int new_offset = offset + 1;
> > + unsigned long new_offset = offset + 1;
> > const char *ident;
> > while (new_offset < size && buf[new_offset++] != '\n')
> > ; /* do nothing */
>
> > @@ -2183,7 +2182,7 @@ int cmd_format_patch(int argc,
> > fmt_patch_suffix = cfg.fmt_patch_suffix;
> >
> > /* Make sure "0000-$sub.patch" gives non-negative length for $sub */
> > - if (cfg.log.fmt_patch_name_max <= strlen("0000-") + strlen(fmt_patch_suffix))
> > + if (cfg.log.fmt_patch_name_max <= cast_size_t_to_int(strlen("0000-") + strlen(fmt_patch_suffix)))
>
> A design question, why we don't change the type of
> `cfg.log.fmt_patch_name_max` to be `size_t`?The whole infra around this uses `int`s, too, so changing this variable here alone wouldn't suffice. We'd also have to adapt option handling, config handling, `struct rev_info::patch_name_max` and other bits and pieces. So in the end the size of required changes would likely balloon and thus I decided to not go down this rabbit hole.
Patrick