Hi, On Wed, 11 Jun 2008, Pieter de Bie wrote: > I actually had this new patch ready, but I was hoping Dscho would answer > this first: > > On 7 jun 2008, at 18:37, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >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. > > since I don't know the answer to that :) I think that your patch does not need to address that, as the logic is (or should be) confined to the functions markt_object() and get_object_mark() (except that you have to split off mark_to_ptr() from mark_object(), as you did). Unfortunately, I did not yet have time to look up the discussion on the mailing list that led me to implement this funny pointer arithmetic. Ciao, Dscho -- 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
