[PATCH] name-rev: use larger timestamp for is_better_name

[PATCH] name-rev: use larger timestamp for is_better_name

[Eric Wong]

This fixes t4202 for me at "44 - log --graph with full output"
on 32-bit x86.

Signed-off-by: Eric Wong <e@80x24.org>
---
 This is for pu, I'm still using the machine I used git with in 2005 :)

 builtin/name-rev.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/builtin/name-rev.c b/builtin/name-rev.c
index f06498524..35409c03b 100644
--- a/builtin/name-rev.c
+++ b/builtin/name-rev.c
@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ static const char *prio_names[] = {
 
 static int is_better_name(struct rev_name *name,
 			  const char *tip_name,
-			  unsigned long taggerdate,
+			  timestamp_t taggerdate,
 			  int generation,
 			  int distance,
 			  int from_tag)
-- 
EW

Re: [PATCH] name-rev: use larger timestamp for is_better_name

[Ramsay Jones]

On 20/05/17 21:36, Eric Wong wrote:
> This fixes t4202 for me at "44 - log --graph with full output"
> on 32-bit x86.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Eric Wong <e@80x24.org>
> ---
>  This is for pu, I'm still using the machine I used git with in 2005 :)
> 
>  builtin/name-rev.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/builtin/name-rev.c b/builtin/name-rev.c
> index f06498524..35409c03b 100644
> --- a/builtin/name-rev.c
> +++ b/builtin/name-rev.c
> @@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ static const char *prio_names[] = {
>  
>  static int is_better_name(struct rev_name *name,
>  			  const char *tip_name,
> -			  unsigned long taggerdate,
> +			  timestamp_t taggerdate,
>  			  int generation,
>  			  int distance,
>  			  int from_tag)
> 

Heh, you seem to be a little ahead of me. :-D

I test on 32-bit Linux from time to time, and tonight's 'pu'
branch fails t4202.44, t6007.2,5-6,12-13,16, t6012.2-11,
t6111.2-65. I bisected the t4202 failure to a merge commit
(99d31e1378, merge branch 'jc/name-rev-lw-tag') and I spotted
the 'unsigned long' taggerdate parameter to the is_better_name()
function.

I was just about to try the patch above and retest, when I saw
your email! (so I can leave that for tonight).

Thanks!

ATB,
Ramsay Jones

Re: [PATCH] name-rev: use larger timestamp for is_better_name

[Junio C Hamano]

Ramsay Jones <ramsay@ramsayjones.plus.com> writes:

> I test on 32-bit Linux from time to time, and tonight's 'pu'
> branch fails t4202.44, t6007.2,5-6,12-13,16, t6012.2-11,
> t6111.2-65. I bisected the t4202 failure to a merge commit
> (99d31e1378, merge branch 'jc/name-rev-lw-tag') and I spotted
> the 'unsigned long' taggerdate parameter to the is_better_name()
> function.

Thanks.  My earlier "oh, cutoff that was long also is a timestamp"
patch was what I did while making this exact "evil merge" change,
and then when I re-integrated everything, I forgot about it.

I'll teach my rerere database about this.  Thanks.