When 'git name-rev' is invoked with commit-ish parameters, it tries to
save some work, and doesn't visit commits older than the committer
date of the oldest given commit minus a one day worth of slop. Since
our 'timestamp_t' is an unsigned type, this leads to a timestamp
underflow when the committ
On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 09:16:26PM +0200, Johannes Sixt wrote:
> Am 23.09.19 um 10:37 schrieb SZEDER Gábor:
> > On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 11:01:26PM +0200, Johannes Sixt wrote:
> >> Huh? For signed cutoff and positive CUTOFF_DATE_SLOP,
> >> cutoff - CUTOFF_DATE_SLOP < cutoff is ALWAYS true. Signed in
Am 23.09.19 um 10:37 schrieb SZEDER Gábor:
> On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 11:01:26PM +0200, Johannes Sixt wrote:
>> Huh? For signed cutoff and positive CUTOFF_DATE_SLOP,
>> cutoff - CUTOFF_DATE_SLOP < cutoff is ALWAYS true. Signed interger
>> underflow is undefined behavior and signed integer arithmetic
On 23/09/2019 09:37, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 11:01:26PM +0200, Johannes Sixt wrote:
Am 22.09.19 um 21:53 schrieb SZEDER Gábor:
On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 07:57:36PM +0100, Phillip Wood wrote:
On 22/09/2019 19:01, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
+/*
+ * One day. See the 'name a rev close
On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 01:42:30AM +, brian m. carlson wrote:
> On 2019-09-22 at 18:01:43, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> > diff --git a/builtin/name-rev.c b/builtin/name-rev.c
> > index c785fe16ba..a4d8d312ab 100644
> > --- a/builtin/name-rev.c
> > +++ b/builtin/name-rev.c
> > @@ -9,7 +9,11 @@
> > #in
On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 11:01:26PM +0200, Johannes Sixt wrote:
> Am 22.09.19 um 21:53 schrieb SZEDER Gábor:
> > On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 07:57:36PM +0100, Phillip Wood wrote:
> >> On 22/09/2019 19:01, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> >>> +/*
> >>> + * One day. See the 'name a rev close to epoch' test in t6120
On 2019-09-22 at 18:01:43, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> diff --git a/builtin/name-rev.c b/builtin/name-rev.c
> index c785fe16ba..a4d8d312ab 100644
> --- a/builtin/name-rev.c
> +++ b/builtin/name-rev.c
> @@ -9,7 +9,11 @@
> #include "sha1-lookup.h"
> #include "commit-slab.h"
>
> -#define CUTOFF_DATE_SLO
Am 22.09.19 um 21:53 schrieb SZEDER Gábor:
> On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 07:57:36PM +0100, Phillip Wood wrote:
>> On 22/09/2019 19:01, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
>>> +/*
>>> + * One day. See the 'name a rev close to epoch' test in t6120 when
>>> + * changing this value
>>> + */
>>> +#define CUTOFF_DATE_SLOP
On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 07:57:36PM +0100, Phillip Wood wrote:
> On 22/09/2019 19:01, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> >When 'git name-rev' is invoked with commit-ish parameters, it tries to
> >save some work, and doesn't visit commits older than the committer
> >date of the oldest given commit minus a one day
Hi Gábor
On 22/09/2019 19:01, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
When 'git name-rev' is invoked with commit-ish parameters, it tries to
save some work, and doesn't visit commits older than the committer
date of the oldest given commit minus a one day worth of slop. Since
our 'timestamp_t' is an unsigned type,
When 'git name-rev' is invoked with commit-ish parameters, it tries to
save some work, and doesn't visit commits older than the committer
date of the oldest given commit minus a one day worth of slop. Since
our 'timestamp_t' is an unsigned type, this leads to a timestamp
underflow when the committ
11 matches
Mail list logo
