Hi Junio, On Wed, 21 Nov 2018, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Оля Тележная <olyatelezhnaya@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > >> I am OK if we avoid PRIdMAX and use PRIuMAX instead with a cast to > >> the corresponding size in this codepath, as long as we properly > >> handle negative oi.disk_size field, which may be telling some > >> "unusual" condition to us. > > > > Maybe we want to change the type (from off_t to unsigned) directly in > > struct object_info? That will help us not to make additional > > checkings. Or, at least, I suggest to add check to > > oid_object_info_extended() so that this function will give a guarantee > > that the size is non-negative. > > I am fine with the approach. The potential gain of allowing > oi.disk_size is it would allow the code to say "I'll give these > pieces of info about the object, but the on-disk size is unknown" > without failing the whole object_info_extended() request. And I > personally do not think such an ability is not all that important > or useful. I see that this topic advanced to `next`, which means that the Windows build of `next` is now broken. To fix this, I prepared a GitGitGadget PR (https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/87) and will submit it as soon as I am satisfied that the build works. Ciao, Dscho
