Igor Mammedov <imamm...@redhat.com> writes:
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 11:49:49 +0800
> liguang <lig.f...@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
>> if value to be translated is larger than INT64_MAX,
>> this function will not be convenient for caller to
>> be aware of it, so change a little for this.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: liguang <lig.f...@cn.fujitsu.com>
>> ---
>> cutils.c | 5 +++--
>> 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/cutils.c b/cutils.c
>> index 4f0692f..8905b5e 100644
>> --- a/cutils.c
>> +++ b/cutils.c
>> @@ -219,11 +219,11 @@ static int64_t suffix_mul(char suffix, int64_t unit)
>> int64_t strtosz_suffix_unit(const char *nptr, char **end,
>> const char default_suffix, int64_t unit)
>> {
>> - int64_t retval = -1;
>> + int64_t retval = -1, mul;
>> char *endptr;
>> unsigned char c;
>> int mul_required = 0;
>> - double val, mul, integral, fraction;
>> + double val, integral, fraction;
>>
>> errno = 0;
>> val = strtod(nptr, &endptr);
>> @@ -246,6 +246,7 @@ int64_t strtosz_suffix_unit(const char *nptr, char
>> **end, goto fail;
>> }
>> if ((val * mul >= INT64_MAX) || val < 0) {
>> + retval = 0;
> Why not to add Error argument to return errors instead of using return value?
> That way function would be easier to generalize in future to handle whole
> INT64 range.
Generalize when you have a user, not earlier.
> And callers would check only returned error instead of return
> value or if 'end' == 0.
Checking the return value is sufficient now. What makes you think you
have to check end, too?
