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

Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:

If we move to time_t everywhere, I think we'll need an extra
TIME_T_IS_64BIT, but we can cross that bridge when we come to it.

Likewise I think we'll need SIZE_T_IS_64BIT eventually (for real 32-bit
systems; LLP64 systems like Windows will then be able to run the test).

I guess I wrote essentially the same thing before refreshing my
Inbox.

I am a bit fuzzy between off_t and size_t; the former is for the
size of things you see on the filesystem, while the latter is for
you to give malloc(3).  I would have thought that off_t is the type
we would want at the end of the raw object header, denoting the size
of a blob object when deflated, which could be larger than the size
of a region of memory we can get from malloc(3), in which case we
would use the streaming interface.