Message ID | 489500bb1dcaffecab42672658990cfc26d52d7c.1635515959.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | New, archived |
Headers | show |
Series | Allow clean/smudge filters to handle huge files in the LLP64 data model | expand |
"Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belón via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes: > +test_lazy_prereq SIZE_T_IS_64BIT ' > + test 8 -eq "$(build_option sizeof-size_t)" > +' > + > test_lazy_prereq LONG_IS_64BIT ' > test 8 -le "$(build_option sizeof-long)" > ' In the longer run, LONG_IS_64BIT wants to be renamed to indicate that it is at least 64-bit long. LONG_HAS_64BIT, perhaps? Obviously it can be left outside the scope of this series.
Hi Junio, On Fri, 29 Oct 2021, Junio C Hamano wrote: > "Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belón via GitGitGadget" > <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes: > > > +test_lazy_prereq SIZE_T_IS_64BIT ' > > + test 8 -eq "$(build_option sizeof-size_t)" > > +' > > + > > test_lazy_prereq LONG_IS_64BIT ' > > test 8 -le "$(build_option sizeof-long)" > > ' > > In the longer run, LONG_IS_64BIT wants to be renamed to indicate > that it is at least 64-bit long. LONG_HAS_64BIT, perhaps? Or `LONG_AT_LEAST_64BIT`. It does look as if the current users are asking for that, not for precisely 64-bit. > Obviously it can be left outside the scope of this series. Definitely. The patch series already grew from 5 to 8 patches. We really need to be more conscious of scope here. Ciao, Dscho
diff --git a/t/test-lib.sh b/t/test-lib.sh index adaf03543e8..af1a94c2c20 100644 --- a/t/test-lib.sh +++ b/t/test-lib.sh @@ -1642,6 +1642,10 @@ build_option () { sed -ne "s/^$1: //p" } +test_lazy_prereq SIZE_T_IS_64BIT ' + test 8 -eq "$(build_option sizeof-size_t)" +' + test_lazy_prereq LONG_IS_64BIT ' test 8 -le "$(build_option sizeof-long)" '