Re: [PATCH] Fix delta integer overflows
- Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 23:10:39 +0200 (CEST)
- From: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix delta integer overflows
On Mon, 7 Aug 2017, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes:
> >> The patch obviously makes the code better and self consistent in
> >> that "struct delta_index" has src_size as ulong, and this function
> >> takes trg_size as ulong, and it was plain wrong for the code to
> >> assume that "i", which is uint, can receive it safely.
> >> In the longer term we might want to move to size_t or even
> >> uintmax_t, as the ulong on a platform may not be long enough in
> >> order to express the largest file size the platform can have, but
> >> this patch (1) is good even without such a change, and (2) gives a
> >> good foundation to build on if we want such a change on top.
> >> Thanks. Will queue.
> > This is sad. There is no "may not be long enough". We already know a
> > platform where unsigned long is not long enough, don't we? Why leave this
> > patch in this intermediate state?
> This is a good foundation to build on, and I never said no further
> update on top of this patch is desired. Look for "(2)" in what you
So are you saying that starting with v2.14.0, you accept patches into `pu`
for which you would previously have required multiple iterations before
even considering it for `pu`?
Frankly, I am a bit surprised that this obvious change from `unsigned
long` to `size_t` is not required in this case before queuing, but if the
rules have changed to lower the bar for patch submissions, I am all for
it. I always felt that we are wasting contributors' time a little too
freely and too deliberately.