From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:49659) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ufa86-0005AO-Qa for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 23 May 2013 14:20:54 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ufa80-0003U0-Mz for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 23 May 2013 14:20:46 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:42065) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ufa80-0003Tr-Da for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 23 May 2013 14:20:40 -0400 From: Luiz Capitulino Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 14:20:26 -0400 Message-Id: <1369333232-24145-7-git-send-email-lcapitulino@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <1369333232-24145-1-git-send-email-lcapitulino@redhat.com> References: <1369333232-24145-1-git-send-email-lcapitulino@redhat.com> Subject: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 06/12] qapi: add QMP input test for large integers List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: aliguori@us.ibm.com From: Michael Roth Large integers previously got capped to LLONG_MAX/LLONG_MIN so we could store them as int64_t. This could lead to silent errors occuring. Now, we use a double to handle these cases. Add a test to confirm that QMPInputVisitor handles this as expected if we're expected an integer value: errors for out of range integer values that got promoted to doubles in this fashion. Signed-off-by: Michael Roth Reviewed-by: Laszlo Ersek Reviewed-by: Amos Kong Signed-off-by: Luiz Capitulino --- tests/test-qmp-input-visitor.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+) diff --git a/tests/test-qmp-input-visitor.c b/tests/test-qmp-input-visitor.c index 955a4c0..b308cf9 100644 --- a/tests/test-qmp-input-visitor.c +++ b/tests/test-qmp-input-visitor.c @@ -75,6 +75,24 @@ static void test_visitor_in_int(TestInputVisitorData *data, g_assert_cmpint(res, ==, value); } +static void test_visitor_in_int_overflow(TestInputVisitorData *data, + const void *unused) +{ + int64_t res = 0; + Error *errp = NULL; + Visitor *v; + + /* this will overflow a Qint/int64, so should be deserialized into + * a QFloat/double field instead, leading to an error if we pass it + * to visit_type_int. confirm this. + */ + v = visitor_input_test_init(data, "%f", DBL_MAX); + + visit_type_int(v, &res, NULL, &errp); + g_assert(error_is_set(&errp)); + error_free(errp); +} + static void test_visitor_in_bool(TestInputVisitorData *data, const void *unused) { @@ -292,6 +310,8 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv) input_visitor_test_add("/visitor/input/int", &in_visitor_data, test_visitor_in_int); + input_visitor_test_add("/visitor/input/int_overflow", + &in_visitor_data, test_visitor_in_int_overflow); input_visitor_test_add("/visitor/input/bool", &in_visitor_data, test_visitor_in_bool); input_visitor_test_add("/visitor/input/number", -- 1.8.1.4