Re: [PATCH 1/9] Convert pack-objects to size_t

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

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

> In a previous comment, I said that (on 32-bit Linux) it was likely
> that an object of > 4GB could not be handled correctly anyway. (more
> likely > 2GB). This was based on the code from (quite some) years ago.
> In particular, before you added the "streaming API". So, maybe a 32-bit
> arch _should_ be able to handle objects as large as the LFS API allows.
> (Ignoring, for the moment, that I think anybody who puts files of that
> size into an SCM probably gets what they deserve. :-P ).
>
> The two patches I commented on, however, changed the type of some
> variables from off_t to size_t. In general, the patches did not
> seem to make anything worse, but these type changes could potentially
> do harm. Hence my comment. (I still haven't tried the patches on my
> 32-bit Linux system. I only boot it up about once a week, and I would
> rather wait until the patches are in the 'pu' branch before testing).

We are in perfect agreement.

I didn't mean to say that it is OK to replace off_t with size_t
without a good reason, especially when the current code (at least
the part I looked at anyway, like the OFS_DELTA part) seems to use
off_t correctly, and your review comments are very much appreciated,
so is the effort started by Martin to take us in the direction of
using types more appropriate than "ulong".