Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] t5000: test tar files that overflow ustar headers

On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 01:22:01PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

quoted

Also, shouldn't it be checking against 0xFFFFFFFF?

Correct.  Somehow I thought I was checking with LONG_MAX.  Will correct.

quoted

An easier check would be "sizeof()", but I guess we can't use that in a
preprocessor directive.

Yes, I tried it and failed ;-)

I also found it funny that you used "==" instead "<=", but I cannot
really think of a case where it would matter. If it is "<= 0xFFFFFFFF",
that basically covers 16-bit platforms. I really hope nobody is trying
to run git on such a platform. Doing "< 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF" to check
for "less than 64-bit" would make more sense, but would probably choke
on a 32-bit preprocessor.

So that everybody is either 32- or 64-bit these days, I think it doesn't
matter in practice.

quoted

quoted

-test_expect_success TAR_HUGE 'system tar can read our huge size' '
+test_expect_success TAR_HUGE,64BIT 'system tar can read our huge size' '

The 64BIT prereq is really "unsigned long is 64-bit". I wonder if we
should call it UL64 or something like that to make it more clear.

That makes it unnecessarily tied-in with the implementation, but it does
make it more clear what we care about; the distinction matters for
things like LP64 vs LLP64.

I do not think any platform is weird enough to have different sizes
for long and ulong, so I am not sure you need UL64.

But pointer size can legitimately be different, so it has a value to
differentiate between LP64 and LLP64, if we start doing things like
"does this platform have large virtual address space?"

LONG_IS_64BIT perhaps to be more readable?

Yeah, that is what I was trying to get at, but you stated it much more
clearly. LONG_IS_64BIT is good. I wonder if the "git version
--build-options" should be "sizeof-long", too. It's shorter, and
indicates our assumption that we are talking about all longs, not just
unsigned ones.

-Peff