Jeff King wrote:
> I added a test. It would not fail on existing 32-bit systems, but would
> on existing LP64 systems. It will pass with the new code on both.
> However, it will fail on ILP64 systems (because their int is large, and
> can represent 3GB). I'm not sure if any such systems are in wide use
> (SPARC64?), but we would want a prereq in that case, I guess. I'm
> inclined to wait to see if it actually fails for anybody.
Yuck.
What will go wrong if "git config --int" starts returning numbers too
large to fit in an 'int'? That can already happen if "git" and a
command that uses it are built for different ABIs (e.g., ILP64 git,
32-bit custom tool that calls git).
It's possible that what the test should be checking for is "either
returns a sane answer or fails" (which would pass regardless of ABI).
Something like:
test_expect_success 'large integers do not confuse config --int' '
git config giga.crash 3g &&
test_might_fail git config --int giga.crash >actual &&
echo 3221225472 >expect &&
{
test_cmp expect actual ||
test_must_fail git config --int giga.crash
}
'
Sensible?
Jonathan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
