Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] progress: fix progress meters when dealing with lots of work
From: Jonathan Tan <hidden>
Date: 2017-11-13 20:28:41
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 12:15:58 -0800 Elijah Newren [off-list ref] wrote:
The possibility of setting merge.renameLimit beyond 2^16 raises the possibility that the values passed to progress can exceed 2^32. Use uint64_t, because it "ought to be enough for anybody". :-) Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <redacted> --- This does imply 64-bit math for all progress operations. Possible alternatives I could think of listed at https://public-inbox.org/git/CABPp-BH1Cpc9UfYpmBBAHWSqadg=QuD=28qx1oV29ZdvF4NbJw@mail.gmail.com/ Opinions of others on whether 64-bit is okay, or preference for which alternative is picked?
I haven't looked into this in much detail, but another alternative to consider is to use size_t everywhere. This also allows us to use st_add and st_mult, which checks overflow for us. Changing progress to use the size_t of the local machine makes sense to me.