On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 11:17:17AM -0400, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> On Thu, 9 May 2013 21:20:58 -0500
> 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 t
On Thu, 9 May 2013 21:20:58 -0500
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)
An
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 08:08:05AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 05/10/2013 06:47 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>
> > The pre-patch code for JSON_INTEGER:
> >
> > obj = QOBJECT(qint_from_int(strtoll(token_get_value(token), NULL, 10)));
> >
> > doesn't check for errors at all. (I assume that JSON_INTEG
On 05/10/2013 06:47 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> The pre-patch code for JSON_INTEGER:
>
> obj = QOBJECT(qint_from_int(strtoll(token_get_value(token), NULL, 10)));
>
> doesn't check for errors at all. (I assume that JSON_INTEGER is selected
> by the parser, token_get_type(), based on syntax purely.)
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 02:47:18PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 05/10/13 14:22, Eric Blake wrote:
> > On 05/09/2013 08:20 PM, 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
On 05/10/13 14:22, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 05/09/2013 08:20 PM, 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 (whi
On 05/09/2013 08:20 PM, 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
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 dete
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 va
