# [PATCH] name-rev: use larger timestamp for is_better_name 3 messages from 2017-05-20 to 2017-05-20. Participants: Eric Wong, Ramsay Jones, Junio C Hamano. Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/46010 ## Eric Wong, 2017-05-20 20:36 Subject: [PATCH] name-rev: use larger timestamp for is_better_name Message-ID: <20170520203649.GA13079@untitled> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20170520203649.GA13079%40untitled ``` This fixes t4202 for me at "44 - log --graph with full output" on 32-bit x86. Signed-off-by: Eric Wong --- 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) -- EW ``` ## Ramsay Jones, 2017-05-20 21:16 Subject: Re: [PATCH] name-rev: use larger timestamp for is_better_name Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/fe9ca677-1f38-4b61-a610-9f8ab014daff%40ramsayjones.plus.com In-Reply-To: <20170520203649.GA13079@untitled> ``` On 20/05/17 21:36, Eric Wong wrote: > This fixes t4202 for me at "44 - log --graph with full output" > on 32-bit x86. > > Signed-off-by: Eric Wong > --- > 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, 2017-05-20 23:21 Subject: Re: [PATCH] name-rev: use larger timestamp for is_better_name Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/xmqqh90fru68.fsf%40gitster.mtv.corp.google.com In-Reply-To: ``` Ramsay Jones writes: > 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. ```