Re: [PATCH 2/2] read-cache: use time_t instead of unsigned long
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Nov 12, 2018, 15:03 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqq7ehi1gpb.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1811121554060.39@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet>
Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
Show 8 quoted lines
>> Given that the function returns the value obtained from >> approxidate(), which is approxidate_careful() in disguise, time_t is >> not as appropriate as timestamp_t, no? >> >> IOW, what if time_t were narrower than timestamp_t? > > Riiiight. From the patch, I had assumed that the return type of > `approxidate()` is `time_t`, but it is `timestamp_t`.
Yes, but if we dig a bit deeper, it turns out that the return value of this function is used at only one place, to be compared with the .st_mtime field.
So for this change to truly be consisent, not just the function needs to return timestamp_t, but also its sole caller needs to check if its return value exceeds the maximum span that is expressible with the platform's time_t (and if so, treat the expiration to be "infinity- never expire"), or something like that.