threads / patch / 46010

patchname-rev: use larger timestamp for is_better_name

Subject: [PATCH] name-rev: use larger timestamp for is_better_name

## tl;dr

3 messages between May 20, 2017 and May 20, 2017. Diffs are folded; open one to read it.

replies: 2people: 3as markdown or json

Eric Wong· May 20, 2017, 20:36 UTC · lore

This fixes t4202 for me at "44 - log --graph with full output" on 32-bit x86.

Signed-off-by: Eric Wong <e@80x24.org>
---
 This is for pu, I'm still using the machine I used git with in 2005 :)

 builtin/name-rev.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

Show changes to builtin/name-rev.c +1 −1

diff --git a/builtin/name-rev.c b/builtin/name-rev.c
index f06498524..35409c03b 100644
--- a/builtin/name-rev.c
+++ b/builtin/name-rev.c
@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ static const char *prio_names[] = {
 
 static int is_better_name(struct rev_name *name,
 			  const char *tip_name,
-			  unsigned long taggerdate,
+			  timestamp_t taggerdate,
 			  int generation,
 			  int distance,
 			  int from_tag)

-- 
EW

Ramsay Jones· May 20, 2017, 21:16 UTC · re: Eric Wong · lore

Re: [PATCH] name-rev: use larger timestamp for is_better_name

On 20/05/17 21:36, Eric Wong wrote:

Show 24 quoted lines

> This fixes t4202 for me at "44 - log --graph with full output"
> on 32-bit x86.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Eric Wong <e@80x24.org>
> ---
>  This is for pu, I'm still using the machine I used git with in 2005 :)
> 
>  builtin/name-rev.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/builtin/name-rev.c b/builtin/name-rev.c
> index f06498524..35409c03b 100644
> --- a/builtin/name-rev.c
> +++ b/builtin/name-rev.c
> @@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ static const char *prio_names[] = {
>  
>  static int is_better_name(struct rev_name *name,
>  			  const char *tip_name,
> -			  unsigned long taggerdate,
> +			  timestamp_t taggerdate,
>  			  int generation,
>  			  int distance,
>  			  int from_tag)
>

Heh, you seem to be a little ahead of me. :-D

I test on 32-bit Linux from time to time, and tonight's 'pu' branch fails t4202.44, t6007.2,5-6,12-13,16, t6012.2-11, t6111.2-65. I bisected the t4202 failure to a merge commit (99d31e1378, merge branch 'jc/name-rev-lw-tag') and I spotted the 'unsigned long' taggerdate parameter to the is_better_name() function.

I was just about to try the patch above and retest, when I saw your email! (so I can leave that for tonight).

Thanks!

ATB, Ramsay Jones

Junio C Hamano· May 20, 2017, 23:21 UTC · re: Ramsay Jones · lore

Re: [PATCH] name-rev: use larger timestamp for is_better_name

Ramsay Jones <ramsay@ramsayjones.plus.com> writes:

Show 6 quoted lines

> I test on 32-bit Linux from time to time, and tonight's 'pu'
> branch fails t4202.44, t6007.2,5-6,12-13,16, t6012.2-11,
> t6111.2-65. I bisected the t4202 failure to a merge commit
> (99d31e1378, merge branch 'jc/name-rev-lw-tag') and I spotted
> the 'unsigned long' taggerdate parameter to the is_better_name()
> function.

Thanks. My earlier "oh, cutoff that was long also is a timestamp" patch was what I did while making this exact "evil merge" change, and then when I re-integrated everything, I forgot about it.

I'll teach my rerere database about this.  Thanks.