In r_string() (read a string) in marshal.c we see this comment:

    /* The result fits into int because it must be <=n. */
    read = fread(p->buf, 1, n, p->fp);

This comment was first committed in r36501 by MvL.  Back then the "read" and "n" variables were int, but (of course) the return size of fread was size_t.  Since then, both n and read have become ssize_t.

I suggest changing the wording slightly anyway, because I had to meditate on what the comment was originally trying to say.  I suggest:

    /* The result fits into ssize_t because n is ssize_t. */

Patch appended too.  Bikeshedding away!

Should this be fixed in previous versions too?

<aside> The "rXXX" notation is reserved for SVN revision numbers, which are unambiguous.  The revision numbers in Mercurial are specific to each clone. </aside>

Other than that, LGTM.

Well, the comment should actually be removed, it's just pointless.

I agree that the comment can be removed. If the code is (now) statically type-safe, there is no point in keeping it.

New changeset 1309fee48908 by Antoine Pitrou in branch 'default':
Close #19260: remove outdated comment in marshal.c
http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/1309fee48908

Martin: The code is not statically type-safe, but it is mechanically safe, which I think is why you wrote the comment in the first place.

The return value of fread() is size_t, but the "read" variable is Py_ssize_t.  So the function *could* theoretically return a value that would overflow the variable.  However, this can't happen in practice because the input size ("n") is also Py_ssize_t.  And fread() will never return a number larger than the number of bytes requested.  QED the function will never return a number larger than one that could be stored in Py_ssize_t.

If the comment originally had merit, then it still has merit.  It was referring to this exact same situation, except back then the "n" and "read" variables were both type "int".  They were both changed to "Py_ssize_t" some time ago but the comment was not updated.

Since Martin contributed the original code and comment I leave it to him to decide its fate, Antoine's shooting-from-the-hip aside.