On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 12:41 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Chris Torek <chris.torek@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > 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? No, you and Derrick Stolee are right, I wasn't looking out far enough here (to the actual function). (I was wondering though if there are systems where the valid range for size_t could exceed that for off_t. Are there still systems using 32-bit off_t? Sometimes I think there are too many abstracted types running around here -- how do we know which sizes are big enough? There is always uintmax_t, though, and for unsigned types, ((T)-1) gets you the maximum possible value.) Chris
