On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 20:46, Erik Faye-Lund <kusmabite@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 8:08 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Ramsay Jones <ramsay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> Junio, could you please drop patches 5-14 from the series; the first four patches >>> are the important ones and I'd rather they didn't get held up. Thanks! >> >> Have these four patches been Acked by interested parties? >> >> I think I saw 1/N and 2/N acked by Erik and 4/N acked by SSchuberth and >> J6t, but any words on 3/N? >> >> Not that I deeply care nor have environment to test changes to [3/N], but >> I am wondering if these need conditional definition to futureproof (e.g. >> what happens when the header you are using the definition _I64_MIN from, >> or some other headers, started defining these constats?). > > I'm not sure if I follow this entirely. _I64_MIN is defined by > limits.h on Windows, and limits.h has a header-guard (or "#pragma > once" as Microsoft-code tends to prefer). > > Oh, right. You mean if someone else starts defining INTMAX_MAX etc? If > someone includes an stdint/inttypes-implementation while including > git-compat-util.h, we're going to have a boat-load of similar issues > anyway. I think guarding them is something that's better left to when > we encounter the problem (if ever). FYI: In contrast to previous versions, Visual Studio 2010 ships with a stdint.h header which defines INTMAX_MAX etc. However, that stdint.h is not included by limits.h (in fact, not by *any* other shipping header file, as it seems), so we should not run into any trouble even with VS2010. So I agree with Erik about patch 3/N: Acked-by: Sebastian Schuberth <sschuberth@xxxxxxxxx> -- Sebastian Schuberth -- 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