forked from git/git
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.6k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[DRAFT] for testing : Fix 4Gb limit for large files on Git for Windows #2179
Open
PhilipOakley
wants to merge
14
commits into
git-for-windows:main
Choose a base branch
from
PhilipOakley:size_t6
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
14 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
5b60f72
zlib.c: use size_t for size
e9925248 9c2f8de
Use size_t instead of 'unsigned long' for data in memory
tboegi 5554ca1
Add test prereq for size_t being 64bit wide
t-b f05d8a6
Add test for large files on windows
t-b fc00458
t/helper/zlib-compile-flags: read zlib flags
a4b2bb5
zlib.c,http_push.c: explicit cast comparisons of potential 32bit long…
fb1a906
zlib.c: refactor stream chuncking to fit uLong 32bit counting
2ea5193
zlib.c, packfile.h,config.mak.uname: deflateBound size coercion
4bf4bda
index-pack.c: split bad object error messages
21d51c0
xcrc32(): create extended crc32 for 64 bit compatibility
8891566
xcrc32: use xcrc32 wrapper
eeb79ff
builtin/index-pack.c,csum-file.c: use size_t for memsized variables
a8e0ee7
packfile.c: set shift limit to sizeof(size_t), not long
a85708c
config.[ch]: provide config_size_t function and use it
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I do think that we can, and should, break apart this huge patch. In other words, I don't believe the statement that this is the minimal patch ;-)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can I just say that the Github review interface is really poor here. I have no idea (from the web page) which patch is which, which belongs to which commit etc.
Assuming this was Torsten's original patch it did fit on the mailing list as a 'less than sufficient' patch https://public-inbox.org/git/[email protected]/ (it's how I applied it, from an email on-list;-).
If the 'minimal' comment is about something else, excuse my mistake.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That's an optimization in the web UI, with a very easy way out: click on the file name above the diff, i.e. https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/pull/2179/files/5b60f72b34f213309d5870b7df4b1038914e4fc0..9c2f8de134713f7e04fc2402567c5b0c29605737#diff-3edc96d0eefd86960d342f661171a62c
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It changes 85 files. Eighty-five! Nobody can review such a patch properly, not @tboegi, not you, not me.
And when I look at the diffstat, I immediately see e.g. that there are plenty of changes in
apply.c
and plenty inbuiltin/pack-objects.c
. Those two files share preciously little concern. So I am rather certain that it would be easy even to split this at the file boundary.Which still does not make sense, as it is still not a logically-minimal patch.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sorry, I meant at that file boundary.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
And indeed, if I apply only the
builtin/pack-objects.c
part, for example, it compiles Just Fine. So the commit message is maybe not quite truthful when it saysThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Or when it says this:
As I just proved, there is a quite a bit smaller patch that already compiles cleanly: just the 70 changed lines of
builtin/pack-objects.c
. And I bet that we can do more of the same to cut this into nice mouthfuls, without breaking the build.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@PhilipOakley I'd like to focus your attention on the two comments above this one.