Re: [PATCH v2] builtin-fast-export: Add importing and exporting of revision marks
- From
Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
- Date
- Jun 11, 2008, 19:45 UTC
- Message-ID
- <alpine.DEB.1.00.0806112043360.1783@racer>
- In-Reply-To
- <7vy75hnqu7.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>
Hi,
On Sat, 7 Jun 2008, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 22 quoted lines
> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes: > > > Okay, I looked again, and indeed, you _copied_ it. Instead of using the > > functions mark_object() and get_object_mark() which are there only to be > > used by you. > > > > So please fix. > > > >> >Even if that is the case, doesn't "(uint32_t *)deco->decoration - > >> >(uint32_t *)NULL" mean the value range for deco->decoration is > >> >one-fourth of U32? > > > > It is. But since every object needs already at least 20 bytes, and we do > > not even have the complete address space to put objects into, and we do > > not plan to support 64-bit only repositories, I think we are fine. > > Oh, I was not complaining about the one-fourthness. I was wondering why > "(uint32_t *)", which makes it look like the type itself has very deep > meaning for this computation, was used, instead of "(char *)" or > something that makes it much clearer that what could be pointed at by > the pointer does not matter and you are only using them as fake > integers.
Probably you are right. I had the impression that you could not rely on (void *) having the full precision, but that was completely bogus.
It could be changed to (char *) safely.
Ciao, Dscho