On 01/18/2013 05:20 PM, Luboš Luňák (via Code Review) wrote:
Thank you for your patch! It has been merged to LibreOffice.If you are interested in details, please visit https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/1625
I must admit that I didn't review the later revisions of that patch while in progress at gerrit, but now the lines
assert( ll <= SAL_MAX_INT64 ); // valueOfInt64 may not be able to handle the highest bit
in the various number() function definitions make me wonder. That implies that clients of those functions need to ensure to call them with small-enough arguments. Is that what we want?
While the gotcha of printing a large unsigned value as a negative value thanks to calling rtl_ustr_valueOfInt64 internally can be a problem in some call sites, others might be fine with producing just some sort of informative value and won't mind generating negative output. If we would want to force the latter into using explicit casts to sal_Int64 (in case they don't do already anyway), wouldn't it be better to make the relevant large unsigned overloads "= delete"?
Stephan _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
