Nicolas Pitre <nico@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 27 Feb 2007, Shawn O. Pearce wrote: > > > Junio C Hamano <junkio@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I am wondering if "enum object_type" and signed comparison here > > > are compatible. sha1_object_info() is of type "int" so that is > > > clearly signed, but are we safe assuming this would not result > > > in "type is unsigned and condition is always false"? > > > > See my recent patch; I actually rewrote those hunks to use OBJ_BAD > > rather than < 0, as this cleans things up for my packv4. Hmm... I appear to now be banned from posting to the git mailing list and I am also no longer recieving email from the mailing list. Argh! > I'd prefer if < 0 remained though. That way we can use negative values > for any kind of error status. And for kernel hackers this is a pretty > common idiom. And it uses less line realestate. > > Actually OBJ_BAD could be assigned the value -1 and OBJ_MAX used to > verify the object number is within range. That would unify things and > make the code a bit more logical. I guess I could do that; my unify_type() function just needs to add a new conditional to see if the input is < 0 and if so return it unchanged. I was trying to avoid that extra condition as it appears twice in the critical path of the object sorting in pack-objects. -- Shawn. - 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