Re: [RFC PATCH v5 0/8] rebase-interactive

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

 





On 3/26/2018 1:57 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jeff Hostetler <git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

I defined that routine to take a uint64_t because I wanted to
pass a nanosecond value received from getnanotime() and that's
what it returns.

Hmph, but the target format does not have different representation
of inttypes in different sizes, no?

I personally doubt that we would benefit from having a group of
functions (i.e. format_int{8,16,32,64}_to_json()) that callers have
to choose from, depending on the exact size of the integer they want
to serialize.  The de-serializing side would be the same story.

Even if the variable a potential caller of the formetter is a sized
type that is different from uintmax_t, the caller shouldn't have to
add an extra cast.

Am I missing some obvious merit for having these separate functions
for explicit sizes?


I did the uint64_t for the unsigned ns times.

I did the other one for the usual signed ints.

I could convert them both to a single signed 64 bit typed function
if we only want to have one function.

Jeff




[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]

  Powered by Linux