Side comment: either of you should feel free to add these additions to
whatever is on the branch. I may have created it, but I don't
consider it anything close to private. Please feel free to hack away.
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Daniel Shahaf <danielsh_at_elego.de> wrote:
> I'm indifferent as to alignment, left alignment sounds fine as it's
> easier for parsing and grepping.
> Width: IMO 20, not 16, since offsets are 64-bit. (And there is no need
> to be a power of 2, because (a) we use atomic move-into-place without
> in-place edits, and (b) the sequence number is currently supposed to be
> at the start, so it'd throw off the block alignment anyway.)
> Overflow: yes, we should check for that, at write time or at read time.
> Or both. I think svn__atoui64() take care of that for the 'read' end...
> Peter Samuelson wrote on Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 12:12:29 -0500:
>> > + /* Update the manifest. */
>> > + SVN_ERR(svn_stream_printf(manifest_stream, iterpool,
>> > + "%016" APR_OFF_T_FMT, next_offset));
>> > + next_offset += finfo.size;
>> Bikeshed time! I think space-padding (either %16 or %-16) would look
>> better than the zero-padding. The only reason to use ASCII digits is
>> for human readability, after all, right? left-alignint (%-16) also
>> means the scanf at the other end only has to scan 6 or so digits
>> instead of all 16, not that that's meaningful. (:
>> Also, for purely theoretical defense against ridiculousness, should we
>> assert(next_offset <= 9999999999999999llu) or so? (Not sure if there's
>> a portable suffix for a 64-bit constant.) Overflow is basically
>> impossible with today's computing and disk resources, but it would be
>> kinda bad if anyone managed to get it to happen.
>> Peter Samuelson | org-tld!p12n!peter | http://p12n.org/
Received on 2011-07-07 19:57:37 CEST