[PATCH 2/7] oid_array: use size_t for iteration

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

 



The previous commit started using size_t for our allocations. There are
some iterations that use int or unsigned, though. These aren't dangerous
with respect to memory, but they could produce incorrect results.

Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx>
---
 sha1-array.c | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/sha1-array.c b/sha1-array.c
index 3eeadfede9..bada0c4353 100644
--- a/sha1-array.c
+++ b/sha1-array.c
@@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ int oid_array_for_each(struct oid_array *array,
 		       for_each_oid_fn fn,
 		       void *data)
 {
-	int i;
+	size_t i;
 
 	/* No oid_array_sort() here! See sha1-array.h */
 
@@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ int oid_array_for_each_unique(struct oid_array *array,
 			      for_each_oid_fn fn,
 			      void *data)
 {
-	int i;
+	size_t i;
 
 	if (!array->sorted)
 		oid_array_sort(array);
@@ -82,7 +82,7 @@ void oid_array_filter(struct oid_array *array,
 		      for_each_oid_fn want,
 		      void *cb_data)
 {
-	unsigned nr = array->nr, src, dst;
+	size_t nr = array->nr, src, dst;
 	struct object_id *oids = array->oid;
 
 	for (src = dst = 0; src < nr; src++) {
-- 
2.26.0.597.g7e08ed78ff




[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