Hi Junio, On Thu, 28 Oct 2021, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Carlo Arenas <carenas@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > >> Since this is clearly copied from `LONG_IS_64BIT`, why the change from > >> `-le` to `-eq`? It is at least inconsistent to use anything different > >> here. > > > > My assumption is that the check for sizeof(size_t) we have is really > > about finding the bit width of the platform, and we currently support > > 2 of them (32-bit and 64-bit), which is why the name I chose was > > "IS_64BIT" and also why I was strict on it being exactly 8 bytes > > (considering all platforms git supports have bytes with 8 bits). > > > > It can go eitherway IMHO, and your point about being inconsistent > > (with my lack of explanation in the commit) suggests we should instead > > use your proposal, do you want me to resend or could adjust them in > > your tree? > > Is LONG_IS_64BIT used to ensure that long is _at least_ 64 bit? If > so, perhaps its name may need to be rethought. On the other hand, > if it is meant to ensure that long is exactly 64 bit, then it should > use -eq to compare. `LONG_IS_64BIT` is used by the `tar` tests to ensure that `long` can represent file sizes larger than 4GB. So yeah, it is an `_AT_LEAST_` instead of an `_IS_`. Not -rc material, though. Ciao, Dscho
