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: > > [[email protected]] > > + /* 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/
