name-rev: use larger timestamp for is_better_name
PATCH 1/1 name-rev: use larger timestamp for is_better_name
This fixes t4202 for me at "44 - log --graph with full output" on 32-bit x86.
---
This is for pu, I'm still using the machine I used git with in 2005 :)
builtin/name-rev.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
builtin/name-rev.c +1 -1
@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ static const char *prio_names[] = {static int is_better_name (struct rev_name *name,const char *tip_name, -unsigned long taggerdate, +timestamp_t taggerdate,int generation,int distance,int from_tag)
Signature · 1 line
EW
Quoted 16 lines · Eric Wong
This fixes t4202 for me at "44 - log --graph with full output" on 32-bit x86.
Signed-off-by Eric Wong <[email protected]>---
This is for pu, I'm still using the machine I used git with in 2005 :)builtin/name-rev.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)builtin/name-rev.c +0
-0
builtin/name-rev.c static const char *prio_names[] = { · line 33
Quoted 8 lines
builtin/name-rev.c +1
-1@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ static const char *prio_names[] = {static int is_better_name (struct rev_name *name,const char *tip_name, -unsigned long taggerdate, +timestamp_t taggerdate,int generation,int distance,int from_tag)
Heh, you seem to be a little ahead of me. :-D
I test on 32-bit Linux from time to time, and tonight's 'pu' branch fails t4202.44, t6007.2,5-6,12-13,16, t6012.2-11, t6111.2-65. I bisected the t4202 failure to a merge commit (99d31e1378, merge branch 'jc/name-rev-lw-tag') and I spotted the 'unsigned long' taggerdate parameter to the is_better_name() function.
I was just about to try the patch above and retest, when I saw your email! (so I can leave that for tonight).
Thanks!
ATB,
Ramsay Jones
Quoted 6 lines · Ramsay Jones
I test on 32-bit Linux from time to time, and tonight's 'pu' branch fails t4202.44, t6007.2,5-6,12-13,16, t6012.2-11, t6111.2-65. I bisected the t4202 failure to a merge commit (
99d31e1378, merge branch 'jc/name-rev-lw-tag') and I spotted the 'unsigned long' taggerdate parameter to theis_better_name()function.
Thanks. My earlier "oh, cutoff that was long also is a timestamp" patch was what I did while making this exact "evil merge" change, and then when I re-integrated everything, I forgot about it.
I'll teach my rerere database about this. Thanks.