Taylor Blau <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > We should probably leave this as a pointer to an off_t, since that is a > more appropriate type for keeping track of an offset within a file (and > indeed it is the return type of hashfile_total()). > > But since it's platform-dependent, we should make sure to cast it to a > uint64_t before writing it as part of the lookup table. Hmm, will make the necessary changes. > That at least removes a side-effect from the implementation of > write_selected_commits_v1() and brings the creation of the > commit_positions array closer to where it's being used, while still > maintaining the constant-time lookups. So that may be a good > alternative, but I'm curious of your thoughts. Sounds good to me :) > I think the construction of table and table_inv could definitely benefit > from a comment here indicating what they're used for and what they > contain (e.g., "table maps abc to xyz"). Yeah, true. Will add comments. Thanks for the other suggestions also :)
