On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 09:03:50 +0100
Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> wrote:
> 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.
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.qemu/183792
>
> > 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?
I've meant *endptr == "\0" check in several callers:
opts_type_size(), img_create(), numa_add().
--
Regards,
Igor
