On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 06:01:08PM +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> On 11/22/21 17:30, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> > So I've got patch 10/10, which handles dynamic (and consequently
> > negative) offsets. It basically computes a "whole size", which then
> > gives the extent to which a negative offset is valid, making the
> > estimates a bit more precise. I didn't do it for static object sizes
> > because I didn't have time then, but I could add a patch 11/10 if the
> > idea sounds OK to you.
>
> ... or alternatively, I could bring the whole size idea into this tree
> conversion patch so that it handles all kinds of offsets. That might even
> eliminate patch 10/10. What would you prefer?
Into this patch.
Jakub
