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

[Martin Koegler <martin.koegler@chello.at>]

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 10:08:05AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>    It may help reducing the maintenance if we introduced obj_size_t
>    that is defined to be size_t for now, so that we can later swap
>    it to ofs_t or some larger type when we know we do need to
>    support objects whose size cannot be expressed in size_t, but I
>    do not offhand know what the pros-and-cons with such an approach
>    would look like.

Where should the use of obj_size_t end and the use of size_t start? 

We often determine a object size and then pass it to malloc. 
We would start with a larger datatyp and then truncate for memory allocation, which use size_t.

Regards,
Martin