From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9449D1F42D for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 08:23:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752548AbeCRIXi (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Mar 2018 04:23:38 -0400 Received: from mail-ot0-f174.google.com ([74.125.82.174]:37766 "EHLO mail-ot0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752203AbeCRIXg (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Mar 2018 04:23:36 -0400 Received: by mail-ot0-f174.google.com with SMTP id t2-v6so5179686otj.4 for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 01:23:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=gUfmZw2i41jFVAmOTivLV2Ah+TMogKGiGtcgG6T/Ync=; b=QQDpg+R9FSNNBMrbWC/hxdJ1BfqWSw6ziQ0F26sxI6tPn1VOPQeaLgyh4blWG4gt81 p7wYBYqXuwVXelqbnA/9q8KEOiqJISBxjBEw36W1QZRa89qRDHAZAVm9HPQduk/mLpWM UL5dgs5Xff48ifUFMvfvas7Y78DqYGpFlgZO5R96GKfZTHBDymw6bboqhmlVdvy+8hhI l2wHVqXa7zxMAmgjMLFNjBAvm/vqvHVyBrG3vIrquJXKiBr4G1JNAYPMniKPVSkOCAFB jBVWN3xLojCcIPN8bF9rVCz9qRaqkFC/frNb0TRlRFRaY6+wb48rql902AD4IjdKe06M G/ew== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=gUfmZw2i41jFVAmOTivLV2Ah+TMogKGiGtcgG6T/Ync=; b=aPj5a8SBgyP11z5rnLbSgUTqoo5HmMyTmzJH5t7wohRQDuIOhW3iCAt9f1PPX80fAS k3Cck9hWWvqMZgatRwusCqI3puNwtE+lisK8ozk0t+AFxOVpHE/D4JBO0SvkR+BaakkL iWfzFxunDIRMfMbievTd1vvoQwT4GPlX4+cbSVF+X05AX6MalgEpaKuVZ47VVlCnlUif P8fRHcdXI2RJDoNwuSC5jWpsDIygr8w6Zs04QCoL1hpDdyE7NO+D/fU9XsCEXmXHRN98 Xt+cJIi3m3Cc2BsGVHM6dEaZzoYG+ZxuR2NsCTZ7UQEKbSD1O1sxQ2j0YB+IKH4h5i5G QKwQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7F+8OsvIuWlenfgWqDRKuq71amVHlPHxVpDDJAfBqpIb6vUhceu KYOXGltvZZQK5mwJASe4kMoqC+nA3mznDPCURH0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELvu9nTAPL4Vxfy5IfOJQIxNhI3H3bZ+wOtNkAEyydZF6dPD2Am+AKbQJg3ltmnVItVPMFfcxdQwWbIk+RPSdFQ= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:3698:: with SMTP id h24-v6mr5430847otc.173.1521361416366; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 01:23:36 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.74.154.146 with HTTP; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 01:23:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20180316183200.31014-1-pclouds@gmail.com> <20180317141033.21545-1-pclouds@gmail.com> <20180317141033.21545-10-pclouds@gmail.com> From: Duy Nguyen Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 09:23:05 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 09/11] pack-objects: shrink size field in struct object_entry To: Junio C Hamano Cc: =?UTF-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsCBCamFybWFzb24=?= , Eric Wong , Git Mailing List , Jeff King Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 6:09 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> + uint32_t truncated_limit = (uint32_t)limit; >> + >> + return limit == truncated_limit; >> +} > > I am guessing that a compiler that is clever enough will make this > function a no-op on a 32-bit arch and that is why it is a static > inline function? It's a separate function because I don't want to duplicate this == logic twice. Even if the compiler does not optimize this, it's still much cheaper than oe_sze() which involves disk access. >> +static inline int oe_size_less_than(const struct object_entry *e, >> + unsigned long limit) >> +{ >> + if (e->size_valid) >> + return e->size_ < limit; > > e->size_ is the true size so we can compare it to see if it is smaller > than limit. > >> + if (contains_in_32bits(limit)) >> + return 1; > > If limit is small enough, and because e->size_valid means e->size_ > does not fit in 32-bit, we know size is larger than limit. > Shouldn't we be returning 0 that means "no, the size is not less > than limit" from here? Argh!!! This logic keeps messing with my brain. -- Duy