On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 07:15:44AM +0700, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 6:05 AM, Jonathan Nieder <jrnie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I can make up for it in enthuasiasm.  Please?  It's something I've
> > wanted for a long time but never found the time to do.
> It's definitely better in the sense that the compiler will catch new
> "char[20]" declarations for us. It's also a lot more work.

It is.  I'm going to start with a patch that introduces struct object_id
and the fixed constants.  Then I'm going to get a patch that compiles
with lots of warnings, and then I'm going to fix all those warnings.
Otherwise, the patch will simply be too enormous to review.

I'm willing to hear other suggestions for going about this, though.

> No architecture was named last time if I remember correctly. But we
> could check "sizeof(struct object_id) == 20" in a test or something.
> When people scream, we can pack the struct on that particular
> platform?

Sounds like a plan.  I am not aware of any architecture that has this
limitation; I've worked with x86(-64)?, 32-bit PowerPC, UltraSPARC, and

brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US
+1 832 623 2791 | http://www.crustytoothpaste.net/~bmc | My opinion only
OpenPGP: RSA v4 4096b: 88AC E9B2 9196 305B A994 7552 F1BA 225C 0223 B187

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to