On 05/10/13 04:20, Michael Roth wrote: > Currently our JSON parser assumes that numbers lacking a mantissa are > integers and attempts to store them as QInt/int64 values. This breaks in > the case where the number overflows/underflows int64 values (which is > still valid JSON) > > Fix this by detecting such cases and using a QFloat to store the value > instead. > > Signed-off-by: Michael Roth <mdr...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > --- > qobject/json-parser.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++++--- > 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/qobject/json-parser.c b/qobject/json-parser.c > index 05279c1..4d14e71 100644 > --- a/qobject/json-parser.c > +++ b/qobject/json-parser.c > @@ -640,9 +640,29 @@ static QObject *parse_literal(JSONParserContext *ctxt) > case JSON_STRING: > obj = QOBJECT(qstring_from_escaped_str(ctxt, token)); > break; > - case JSON_INTEGER: > - obj = QOBJECT(qint_from_int(strtoll(token_get_value(token), NULL, > 10))); > - break; > + case JSON_INTEGER: { > + /* A possibility exists that this is a whole-valued float where the > + * mantissa was left out due to being 0 (.0). It's not a big deal to > + * treat these as ints in the parser, so long as users of the > + * resulting QObject know to expect a QInt in place of a QFloat in > + * cases like these. > + * > + * However, in some cases these values will overflow/underflow a > + * QInt/int64 container, thus we should assume these are to be > handled > + * as QFloats/doubles rather than silently changing their values. > + * > + * strtoll() indicates these instances by setting errno to ERANGE > + */ > + int64_t value; > + > + errno = 0; /* strtoll doesn't set errno on success */ > + value = strtoll(token_get_value(token), NULL, 10); > + if (errno != ERANGE) { > + obj = QOBJECT(qint_from_int(value)); > + break; > + } > + /* fall through to JSON_FLOAT */ > + } > case JSON_FLOAT: > /* FIXME dependent on locale */ > obj = QOBJECT(qfloat_from_double(strtod(token_get_value(token), > NULL))); >
I wanted to correct you here and propose s/mantissa/fractional part/ everywhere in this patch (including commit message and patch body). However <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mantissa> tells me one meaning of "mantissa" *is* "fractional part". In that sense I won't try to "correct" you, but can you consider doing the replacement still, in order not to confuse non-native speakers who associate "mantissa" only with the third meaning Wiktionary gives, ie. the significand in FP representation? Otherwise the v2 series looks good to me (not R-b-ing it since you'll post v3 to address Amos's note). Thanks, Laszlo