On 01/16/13 19:28, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> +static void test_parse_uint_negative(void)
> +{
> + unsigned long long i = 999;
> + char f = 'X';
> + char *endptr = &f;
> + const char *str = " \t -321";
> + int r;
> +
> + r = parse_uint(str, &i, &endptr, 0);
> +
> + g_assert_cmpint(r, ==, -ERANGE);
> + g_assert_cmpint(i, ==, 0);
> + g_assert(endptr == str + 3);
> +}
I think it would be more true to the strtol() family if in this case
(a) we reported -EINVAL (invalid subject sequence) -- but I certainly
don't insist on that,
(b) and, independently,
(b1) we either consumed all of the whitespace sequence *and* the subject
sequence (which would be consistent with ERANGE; see
test_parse_uint_overflow()),
(b2) or we didn't consume anything (not even part of the whitespace
sequence). This would be easy to implement and also consistent with the
strtol() family's behavior when it sees an invalid subject sequence:
"If the subject sequence is empty or does not have the expected form, no
conversion is performed; the value of /str/ is stored in the object
pointed to by /endptr/, provided that /endptr/ is not a null pointer."
But I don't insist on (b) either :)
Reviewed-by: Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com>
