On 2018-11-19 00:40, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Derrick Stolee <stolee@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>>> This needs to go on top of pu, to cover all the good stuff
>>> cooking here.
>>
>> Better to work on top of 'master', as the work in 'pu' will be
>> rewritten several times, probably.
>
> We may not be able to find any good moment to update some codepaths
> with deep callchains that reaches a basic API function that take
> ulong that way, as things are always in motion, but hopefully a lot
> of areas that need changes are rather isolated.
>
> For example, the changes I see around "offset" (which is "ulong" and
> the patch wants to change it to "size_t") in archive-tar.c in the
> patch do not have any interaction with the changes in this patch
> outside that single file, and I do not think any topic in-flight
> would interact with this change badly, either. I didn't carefully
> look at the remainder of the patches, but I have a feeling that many
> can be separated out into independent and focused set of smaller
> patches that can be evaluated on their own.
>
The archive-tar.c is actually a good example, why a step-by-step update
is not ideal (the code would not work any more on Win64).
If we look here:
static int stream_blocked(const struct object_id *oid)
{
struct git_istream *st;
enum object_type type;
size_t sz;
char buf[BLOCKSIZE];
ssize_t readlen;
st = open_istream(oid, &type, &sz, NULL);
^^^^^
if (!st)
return error(_("cannot stream blob %s"), oid_to_hex(oid));
for (;;) {
The sz variable must follow whatever open_istream() uses, so if we start
with archive-tar.c, we must use either size_t or ulong, whatever
open_istream() needs. Otherwise things will break:
archive-tar.c uses ulong, open_istream() size_t, but we are passing pointers
around, and here &ulong != &size_t
If we only update open_istream(), but not archive-tar.c, then
things are not better:
&size_t != &ulong.
I don't have a good idea how to split the patch.
However, "add a coccinelle script" may be a solution.
