Hi, On Sat, 7 Jun 2008, Junio C Hamano wrote: > 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. Probably you are right. I had the impression that you could not rely on (void *) having the full precision, but that was completely bogus. It could be changed to (char *) safely. 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
