Re: Back-dating commits--way back--for constitution.git

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 03:19:09PM +0200, Jakub Narebski wrote:

> > I am not sure there isn't some unportability at the lowest level. We
> > freely interchange between time_t and unsigned long in the low-level
> > date code. It probably happens to work because casting the bits back and
> > forth between signed and unsigned types generally works, as long as you
> > end up with the type that you want. But it isn't necessarily portable,
> > and there can be subtle bugs. See, for example, my recent 9ba0f033.
> 
> Well, at least there is not a problem at lowest of low, i.e. repository
> format level, thanks to the use of textual representation for epoch.

Yes, the good news that this is purely a code problem. The data format
is fine. It would just take somebody going through the code and
switching all "unsigned long" to "long long" (or time_t, or even
"gittime_t" if we want to abstract it).

-Peff
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]