On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 01:52:16PM +0200, SZEDER Gábor wrote: > diff --git a/progress.c b/progress.c > index 842db14b72..3149ecd460 100644 > --- a/progress.c > +++ b/progress.c > @@ -84,6 +84,7 @@ static void display(struct progress *progress, uint64_t n, > const char *done) > const char *tp; > struct strbuf *counters_sb = &progress->counters_sb; > int show_update = 0; > + int last_count_len = counters_sb->len;
I don't think it could matter here, as these are meant to be smallish strings, but I think we should get into the habit of using size_t consistently to hold string lengths. It makes auditing for integer overflow problems much simpler (this is on my mind as I happen to be tracing some bugs around this the past few days). (There are a few instances in the next patch, too. Other than this nit, though, your series looks good to me). -Peff
