On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 3:08 AM <futat...@apache.org> wrote:
> @@ -691,17 +691,20 @@ compare_p2l_to_rev(svn_fs_t *fs,
> * during later stages of the verification process. */
> if ( (entry->type == SVN_FS_FS__ITEM_TYPE_CHANGES)
> != (entry->item.number == SVN_FS_FS__ITEM_INDEX_CHANGES))
> - return svn_error_createf(SVN_ERR_FS_INDEX_CORRUPTION,
> - NULL,
> - _("p2l index entry for changes in"
> - " revision r%ld is item"
> - " %"APR_UINT64_T_FMT
> - " of type %u at offset %s"),
> - entry->item.revision,
> - entry->item.number,
> - (unsigned int)entry->type,
> - apr_off_t_toa(pool, offset));
> -
> + {
> + const char *num_str = apr_psprintf(pool,
> + "%" APR_UINT64_T_FMT,
> + entry->item.number);
> + return svn_error_createf(SVN_ERR_FS_INDEX_CORRUPTION,
> + NULL,
> + _("p2l index entry for changes in"
> + " revision r%ld is item %s"
> + " of type %u at offset %s"),
> + entry->item.revision,
> + num_str,
> + (unsigned int)entry->type,
> + apr_off_t_toa(pool, offset));
> + }
> /* Check contents. */
> if (entry->type == SVN_FS_FS__ITEM_TYPE_UNUSED)
> {
I must be missing something obvious, but I don't see what was broken
about the way entry->item.number was formatted before?
Thanks,
Nathan
