From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gorcunov@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-lf1-f65.google.com (mail-lf1-f65.google.com
 [209.85.167.65])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A092469710
 for <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>;
 Mon, 18 May 2020 14:32:12 +0300 (MSK)
Received: by mail-lf1-f65.google.com with SMTP id v5so7687814lfp.13
 for <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>;
 Mon, 18 May 2020 04:32:12 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 14:32:09 +0300
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20200518113209.GA2194@grain>
References: <20200518101502.117121-1-gorcunov@gmail.com>
 <20200518101502.117121-3-gorcunov@gmail.com>
 <20200518111306.GA12861@tarantool.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200518111306.GA12861@tarantool.org>
Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH 2/5] box/sql: func -- fix
	compilation warning
List-Id: Tarantool development patches <tarantool-patches.dev.tarantool.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.tarantool.org/mailman/options/tarantool-patches>, 
 <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.tarantool.org/pipermail/tarantool-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.tarantool.org/mailman/listinfo/tarantool-patches>, 
 <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Mergen Imeev <imeevma@tarantool.org>
Cc: tml <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>, Alexander Turenko <alexander.turenko@tarantool.org>

On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 02:13:07PM +0300, Mergen Imeev wrote:
> > @@ -845,9 +845,9 @@ roundFunc(sql_context * context, int argc, sql_value ** argv)
> >  	 * handle the rounding directly,
> >  	 * otherwise use printf.
> >  	 */
> > -	if (n == 0 && r >= 0 && r < LARGEST_INT64 - 1) {
> > +	if (n == 0 && r >= 0 && r < (double)(LARGEST_INT64 - 1)) {
> >  		r = (double)((sql_int64) (r + 0.5));
> I am not sure that this change worth to do since
> LARGEST_INT64 = 2^63 -1 and
> (double)(LARGEST_INT64 - 1) == 2^63, if I am not wrong.
> I also not sure that this worked right before.
> I think it makes sense to compare with someting like 2^53,
> because if absolute value of r is greater that 2^53 than
> we do not have to round it anymore.

Mergen, I've no clue which limits we have in sql, thus it
is up to you. Either fix it on top either provide a patch
instead please.