Eric Blake writes:
> On 01/20/2016 10:29 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Eric Blake writes:
>>
>>> Our qapi visitor contract supports multiple integer visitors,
>>> but left the type_uint64 visitor as optional (falling back on
>>> type_int64); it also
On 01/21/2016 01:56 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>> Before: nobody implements type_uint64(), and the core falls back to
>>> type_int64(), casting negative values to large positive ones. With an
>>> implementation of type_int64() that parses large positive values as
>>> negative, the two casts
Eric Blake writes:
> Our qapi visitor contract supports multiple integer visitors,
> but left the type_uint64 visitor as optional (falling back on
> type_int64); it also marks the type_size visitor as optional
> (falling back on type_uint64 or even type_int64).
>
> Note that
On 01/20/2016 10:29 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Eric Blake writes:
>
>> Our qapi visitor contract supports multiple integer visitors,
>> but left the type_uint64 visitor as optional (falling back on
>> type_int64); it also marks the type_size visitor as optional
>> (falling
Our qapi visitor contract supports multiple integer visitors,
but left the type_uint64 visitor as optional (falling back on
type_int64); it also marks the type_size visitor as optional
(falling back on type_uint64 or even type_int64).
Note that the default of falling back on type_int for unsigned