Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > Okay, I looked again, and indeed, you _copied_ it. Instead of using the > functions mark_object() and get_object_mark() which are there only to be > used by you. > > So please fix. > >> >Even if that is the case, doesn't "(uint32_t *)deco->decoration - >> >(uint32_t *)NULL" mean the value range for deco->decoration is >> >one-fourth of U32? > > It is. But since every object needs already at least 20 bytes, and we do > not even have the complete address space to put objects into, and we do > not plan to support 64-bit only repositories, I think we are fine. Oh, I was not complaining about the one-fourthness. I was wondering why "(uint32_t *)", which makes it look like the type itself has very deep meaning for this computation, was used, instead of "(char *)" or something that makes it much clearer that what could be pointed at by the pointer does not matter and you are only using them as fake integers. If there is such a deep meaning, it needs documented, and if there isn't then probably the use of (uint32_t *) should also be fixed. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
