Hi Junio, On Fri, 29 Oct 2021, Junio C Hamano wrote: > "Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belón via GitGitGadget" > <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > +test_lazy_prereq SIZE_T_IS_64BIT ' > > + test 8 -eq "$(build_option sizeof-size_t)" > > +' > > + > > test_lazy_prereq LONG_IS_64BIT ' > > test 8 -le "$(build_option sizeof-long)" > > ' > > In the longer run, LONG_IS_64BIT wants to be renamed to indicate > that it is at least 64-bit long. LONG_HAS_64BIT, perhaps? Or `LONG_AT_LEAST_64BIT`. It does look as if the current users are asking for that, not for precisely 64-bit. > Obviously it can be left outside the scope of this series. Definitely. The patch series already grew from 5 to 8 patches. We really need to be more conscious of scope here. Ciao, Dscho
