Hi Junio, On Mon, 28 Jan 2019, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > On Sun, 27 Jan 2019, sxenos@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > + new_item->util = (void*)index; > > This is not good. You are using a `long` here. The 80s called and want > their now-obsolete data types back. > > If you want a data type that can take an integer but also a pointer, use > `intptr_t` instead. > > But even that is not good practice. What you really want here is to use a > union of the data types that you want to store in that `util` field. > > This is not merely academic, your code causes compile errors on Windows: > > https://dev.azure.com/gitgitgadget/git/_build/results?buildId=400&view=logs&jobId=fd490c07-0b22-5182-fac9-6d67fe1e939b&taskId=ce91d5d6-0c55-50f5-8ab9-6695c03ab102&lineStart=430&lineEnd=440&colStart=1&colEnd=1 Since Stefan did not grace us with an answer, Junio, could I ask you to squash this in (which is by no means a satisfactory fix, but it is a stopgap to get `pu` building again)? -- snipsnap -- diff --git a/change-table.c b/change-table.c index 2e0d935de846..197ce2783532 100644 --- a/change-table.c +++ b/change-table.c @@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ void change_table_add(struct change_table *to_modify, const char *refname, new_head->hidden = starts_with(refname, "refs/hiddenmetas/"); new_item = string_list_insert(&to_modify->refname_to_change_head, refname); - new_item->util = (void*)index; + new_item->util = (void *)(intptr_t)index; // Use pointers to the copy of the string we're retaining locally refname = new_item->string; @@ -201,6 +201,6 @@ struct change_head* get_change_head(struct change_table *heads, return NULL; } - index = (long)item->util; + index = (long)(intptr_t)item->util; return &(heads->heads.array[index]); }
