On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 02:24:52PM +0800, Tao Xu wrote:
> On 11/7/2019 4:53 AM, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 03:52:12PM +0800, Tao Xu wrote:
> > > Add tests for time input such as zero, around limit of precision,
> > > signed upper limit, actual upper limit, beyond limits, time suffixes,
> > > and etc.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Tao Xu <tao3...@intel.com>
> > > ---
> > [...]
> > > + /* Close to signed upper limit 0x7ffffffffffffc00 (53 msbs set) */
> > > + qdict = keyval_parse("time1=9223372036854774784," /*
> > > 7ffffffffffffc00 */
> > > + "time2=9223372036854775295", /*
> > > 7ffffffffffffdff */
> > > + NULL, &error_abort);
> > > + v = qobject_input_visitor_new_keyval(QOBJECT(qdict));
> > > + qobject_unref(qdict);
> > > + visit_start_struct(v, NULL, NULL, 0, &error_abort);
> > > + visit_type_time(v, "time1", &time, &error_abort);
> > > + g_assert_cmphex(time, ==, 0x7ffffffffffffc00);
> > > + visit_type_time(v, "time2", &time, &error_abort);
> > > + g_assert_cmphex(time, ==, 0x7ffffffffffffc00);
> >
> > I'm confused by this test case and the one below[1]. Are these
> > known bugs? Shouldn't we document them as known bugs?
>
> Because do_strtosz() or do_strtomul() actually parse with strtod(), so the
> precision is 53 bits, so in these cases, 7ffffffffffffdff and
> fffffffffffffbff are rounded.
My questions remain: why isn't this being treated like a bug?
--
Eduardo
