Olga Telezhnaya <olyatelezhnaya@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> @@ -876,11 +882,13 @@ static void grab_common_values(struct atom_value *val, int deref, struct expand_
> name++;
> if (!strcmp(name, "objecttype"))
> v->s = xstrdup(type_name(oi->type));
> - else if (!strcmp(name, "objectsize")) {
> + else if (!strcmp(name, "objectsize:disk")) {
> + v->value = oi->disk_size;
> + v->s = xstrfmt("%lld", (long long)oi->disk_size);
oi.disk_size is off_t; do we know "long long"
(1) is available widely enough (I think it is from c99)?
(2) is sufficiently wide so that we can safely cast off_t to?
(3) will stay to be sufficiently wide as machines get larger
together with standard types like off_t in the future?
I'd rather use intmax_t (as off_t is a signed integral type) so that
we do not have to worry about these questions in the first place.
> + } else if (!strcmp(name, "objectsize")) {
> v->value = oi->size;
> v->s = xstrfmt("%lu", oi->size);
This is not a suggestion but is a genuine question, but I wonder if
two years down the road somebody who meets this API for the first
time find the asymmetry between "objectsize" and "objectsize:disk" a
tad strange and suggest the former to have "objectsize:real" or some
synonym. Or we can consider "objectsize" the primary thing (hence
needing no colon-plus-modifier to clarify what kind of size we are
asking) and leave these two deliberatly asymmetric. I am leaning
towards the latter myself.
> - }
> - else if (deref)
> + } else if (deref)
> grab_objectname(name, &oi->oid, v, &used_atom[i]);
> }
> }
>
> --
> https://github.com/git/git/pull/552
