Side comment: either of you should feel free to add these additions to whatever is on the branch. I may have created it, but I don't consider it anything close to private. Please feel free to hack away.
-Hyrum On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Daniel Shahaf <[email protected]> wrote: > 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/ >
