RFR: 8159695: Arguments::atojulong() fails to detect overflows

[Marcus Larsson]

On 06/27/2016 02:56 PM, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
> Marcus,
>
>> Actually strtoull can return 0 if it reads no value, so to properly
>> detect all errors we should check errno.
> if strtoull can't read value reminder is equal to s and this case is
> caught at ll 602.

Ah, that's right.

>
> other cases of non-zero errno:
>
>    unsupported base - not possible
>    overflow - possible, but would be caught by check against LLONG_MAX
>
> Despite the fact that posix.1c requires errno to be a thread-local, it's
> better to avoid errno when possible.

Good point. I'll remove the errno check then.

Thanks,
Marcus

>
> -Dmitry
>
> On 2016-06-27 15:42, Marcus Larsson wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> On 06/27/2016 11:25 AM, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
>>> Marcus,
>>>
>>> Looks good for me beside some nits.
>>>
>>> 597: It might be better to don't check for errno but check for LLONG_MAX
>>> at 602
>> Actually strtoull can return 0 if it reads no value, so to properly
>> detect all errors we should check errno.
>>
>>> 593: s[0] == '0' && ((s[1] | 0x20) == 'x') might be slightly more
>>> readable.
>>>
>>> 602  strlen call could be replaced with
>>>         (*reminder != 0 && *(reminder+1) != 0)
>> I'm not sure I think this makes it more readable, but I can change it if
>> you want. Anyone else have an opinion on this?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Marcus
>>
>>> -Dmitry
>>>
>>> On 2016-06-27 11:35, Marcus Larsson wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Please review the following patch to detect overflows in atojulong. The
>>>> patch uses strtoull instead of sscanf, and adds a unit test for
>>>> atojulong.
>>>>
>>>> Webrev:
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mlarsson/8159695/webrev.00/
>>>>
>>>> Issue:
>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8159695
>>>>
>>>> Testing:
>>>> JPRT testset hotspot and included unit test through RBT.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Marcus
>