On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 10:08:05AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > It may help reducing the maintenance if we introduced obj_size_t > that is defined to be size_t for now, so that we can later swap > it to ofs_t or some larger type when we know we do need to > support objects whose size cannot be expressed in size_t, but I > do not offhand know what the pros-and-cons with such an approach > would look like. Where should the use of obj_size_t end and the use of size_t start? We often determine a object size and then pass it to malloc. We would start with a larger datatyp and then truncate for memory allocation, which use size_t. Regards, Martin
