Chris Torek <chris.torek@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 4:00 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> * the fourth parameter of add_chunk() is of size_t, not uint64_t; >> shouldn't the multiplication be done in type size_t instead? > > There are (still) systems with 32-bit size_t (but 64-bit > off_t / file sizes), so ... probably not. Is size_t ever more than > 64 bits these days? Sorry, you lost me. I do not see how it would help to perform the multiplication in uint64_t, when you suspect that size_t is too small, if the final destination of the result of the multiplication is a function argument of type size_t?
