Hi, On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 3:42 PM, brian m. carlson <sand...@crustytoothpaste.net> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 10:36:17AM -0800, Elijah Newren wrote: <snip> >> Further, the later patch used uint64_t instead of double. While >> double works, perhaps I should change the double here to uint64_t for >> consistency? > > I'm wondering if maybe you want to use size_t. If you end up using an > unsigned type, you might be able to leverage unsigned_mult_overflows to > avoid having to write this by hand.
Thanks for pointing out unsigned_mult_overflows; I was unaware of it. I think I'd prefer to not use it though; the fact that I had a case that genuinely needed a value greater than 2^31 (at least before my performance patches) meant that a slightly bigger repo is going to eventually need a value over 2^32, so I think we should just cast to a type that can hold it. I'm curious why you suggest size_t, though. I have always associated that with an amount of memory that will be used, and there's no allocation based on this result. Was I wrong to make that association, or is there another good reason here?
