On Mon, Feb 28 2022, Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget wrote:
> From: Derrick Stolee <derrickstolee@xxxxxxxxxx>
> [...]
> diff --git a/commit-graph.c b/commit-graph.c
> index 265c010122e..a19bd96c2ee 100644
> --- a/commit-graph.c
> +++ b/commit-graph.c
> @@ -1556,12 +1556,16 @@ static void compute_generation_numbers(struct write_commit_graph_context *ctx)
> if (current->date && current->date > max_corrected_commit_date)
> max_corrected_commit_date = current->date - 1;
> commit_graph_data_at(current)->generation = max_corrected_commit_date + 1;
> -
> - if (commit_graph_data_at(current)->generation - current->date > GENERATION_NUMBER_V2_OFFSET_MAX)
> - ctx->num_generation_data_overflows++;
> }
> }
> }
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < ctx->commits.nr; i++) {
> + struct commit *c = ctx->commits.list[i];
> + timestamp_t offset = commit_graph_data_at(c)->generation - c->date;
> + if (offset > GENERATION_NUMBER_V2_OFFSET_MAX)
> + ctx->num_generation_data_overflows++;
> + }
> stop_progress(&ctx->progress);
> }
>
> diff --git a/t/t5318-commit-graph.sh b/t/t5318-commit-graph.sh
> index 2b05026cf6d..f9bffe38013 100755
> --- a/t/t5318-commit-graph.sh
> +++ b/t/t5318-commit-graph.sh
> @@ -467,10 +467,10 @@ test_expect_success 'warn on improper hash version' '
> )
> '
>
> -test_expect_success 'lower layers have overflow chunk' '
> +test_expect_success TIME_IS_64BIT,TIME_T_IS_64BIT 'lower layers have overflow chunk' '
> cd "$TRASH_DIRECTORY/full" &&
> UNIX_EPOCH_ZERO="@0 +0000" &&
> - FUTURE_DATE="@2147483646 +0000" &&
> + FUTURE_DATE="@4147483646 +0000" &&
> rm -f .git/objects/info/commit-graph &&
> test_commit --date "$FUTURE_DATE" future-1 &&
> test_commit --date "$UNIX_EPOCH_ZERO" old-1 &&
Isn't it worth splitting up this test instead, so that we can test cases
where 32 bit timestamps overflow without these new prereqs.
Unless I'm missing something that would just be a matter of splitting
this test into helper that takes that $FUTURE_DATE as an argument, then
running it for both timestamps, with TIME_IS_64BIT,TIME_T_IS_64BIT on
the 64 bit one.
Or maybe I don't get it, but it seems like we're throwing out some
carefully considered testing for 32 bit compatibility with the
proverbial bath water here....
Aside from that I wonder how this interacts with both:
#define CORRECTED_COMMIT_DATE_OFFSET_OVERFLOW (1ULL << 31)
And this existing code, where offset is timestamp_t, but
num_generation_data_overflows is an "int":
offset = CORRECTED_COMMIT_DATE_OFFSET_OVERFLOW | num_generation_data_overflows;
That proooobably does the right thing if int is say 32 bit, but
timestamp_t is 64 bit (does such an OS exist?), but maybe worth looking
at with a second pair of eyes...
