Max Kirillov <m...@max630.net> writes:
> Add tests for cases:
>
> * CONTENT_LENGTH is set, script's stdin has more data.
> (Failure would make it read GIT_HTTP_MAX_REQUEST_BUFFER bytes from /dev/zero
> and fail. It does not seem to cause any performance issues with the default
> value of GIT_HTTP_MAX_REQUEST_BUFFER.)
> * CONTENT_LENGTH is specified to a value which does not fix into ssize_t.
s/fix/fit/ you meant?
> diff --git a/t/helper/test-print-values.c b/t/helper/test-print-values.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000..8f7e5af319
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/t/helper/test-print-values.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
> +#include <stdio.h>
> +#include <string.h>
> +
> +int cmd_main(int argc, const char **argv)
> +{
> + if (argc == 2 && strcmp(argv[1], "(size_t)(-20)") == 0)
> + printf("%zu", (ssize_t)(-20));
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
As far as I know, we avoid %zu (C99), as it may not be safe yet to
do so on all platforms.
e.g. c.f.
https://public-inbox.org/git/64c7d52f-9030-460c-8f61-4076f5c1d...@gmail.com/
You may want to double check the 1/2 of this topic, too.
Forcing a test command line to spell out "(size_t)(-20)" feels a bit
atrocious, especially given that this program is capable of ever
showing that string and nothing else, and it does not even diagnose
typos as errors.
I wonder if we would want to have "test-print-larger-than-ssize" and
do something like
#include "cache.h"
int cmd_main(int ac, const char **av)
{
uintmax_t large = ((uintmax_t) SSIZE_MAX) + 1;
printf("%" PRIuMAX "\n", large);
return 0;
}
perhaps?
Note that wrapper.c seems to assume that not everybody has
SSIZE_MAX, so we might have to do something silly like
size_t large = ~0;
large = ~(large & ~(large >> 1)) + 1;
printf("%" PRIuMAX "\n", (uintmax_t) large);
just to be careful (even though we now assume 2's complement),
though.
