* [tarantool-patches] [PATCH v1 1/1] lua: fix strange behaviour of tonumber64
@ 2018-07-13 11:21 Kirill Shcherbatov
2018-07-16 10:23 ` [tarantool-patches] " Vladislav Shpilevoy
2018-07-19 10:46 ` Kirill Yukhin
0 siblings, 2 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Kirill Shcherbatov @ 2018-07-13 11:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: tarantool-patches; +Cc: v.shpilevoy, Kirill Shcherbatov
Function tonumber64 has worked incorrectly with values less
than LLONG_MIN.
Now it works in the interval [LLONG_MIN, ULLONG_MAX] returning
nil otherwise.
Closes #3466.
---
Branch: https://github.com/tarantool/tarantool/compare/kshch/gh-3466-tonumber64-strange-behaviour
Issue: https://github.com/tarantool/tarantool/issues/3466
src/lua/init.c | 6 +++++-
test/box/misc.result | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
test/box/misc.test.lua | 8 ++++++++
3 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/src/lua/init.c b/src/lua/init.c
index 9a96030..4b5285d 100644
--- a/src/lua/init.c
+++ b/src/lua/init.c
@@ -222,7 +222,11 @@ lbox_tonumber64(struct lua_State *L)
if (argl == 0) {
lua_pushnil(L);
} else if (negative) {
- luaL_pushint64(L, -1 * (long long )result);
+ if (result > LLONG_MAX) {
+ lua_pushnil(L);
+ } else {
+ luaL_pushint64(L, -1 * result);
+ }
} else {
luaL_pushuint64(L, result);
}
diff --git a/test/box/misc.result b/test/box/misc.result
index f332a8c..dcd08d0 100644
--- a/test/box/misc.result
+++ b/test/box/misc.result
@@ -640,6 +640,25 @@ tostring(tonumber64('1234567890123456')) == '1234567890123456ULL'
---
- true
...
+--
+-- gh-3466: Strange behaviour of tonumber64 function
+--
+tostring(tonumber64('18446744073709551615')) == '18446744073709551615ULL'
+---
+- true
+...
+tonumber64('18446744073709551616') == nil
+---
+- true
+...
+tostring(tonumber64('-9223372036854775807')) == '-9223372036854775807LL'
+---
+- true
+...
+tonumber64('-9223372036854775808') == nil
+---
+- true
+...
tonumber64('0x12') == 18
---
- true
diff --git a/test/box/misc.test.lua b/test/box/misc.test.lua
index e24228a..4816235 100644
--- a/test/box/misc.test.lua
+++ b/test/box/misc.test.lua
@@ -165,6 +165,14 @@ tostring(tonumber64('12345678901234')) == '12345678901234'
tostring(tonumber64('123456789012345')) == '123456789012345ULL'
tostring(tonumber64('1234567890123456')) == '1234567890123456ULL'
+--
+-- gh-3466: Strange behaviour of tonumber64 function
+--
+tostring(tonumber64('18446744073709551615')) == '18446744073709551615ULL'
+tonumber64('18446744073709551616') == nil
+tostring(tonumber64('-9223372036854775807')) == '-9223372036854775807LL'
+tonumber64('-9223372036854775808') == nil
+
tonumber64('0x12') == 18
tonumber64('0x12', 16) == 18
tonumber64('0x12', 17) == nil
--
2.7.4
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [tarantool-patches] Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] lua: fix strange behaviour of tonumber64
2018-07-13 11:21 [tarantool-patches] [PATCH v1 1/1] lua: fix strange behaviour of tonumber64 Kirill Shcherbatov
@ 2018-07-16 10:23 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy
2018-07-16 12:49 ` Alexander Turenko
2018-07-19 10:46 ` Kirill Yukhin
1 sibling, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Vladislav Shpilevoy @ 2018-07-16 10:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kirill Shcherbatov, tarantool-patches
Thanks for the patch! See 4 comments below.
On 13/07/2018 14:21, Kirill Shcherbatov wrote:
> Function tonumber64 has worked incorrectly with values less
> than LLONG_MIN.
> Now it works in the interval [LLONG_MIN, ULLONG_MAX] returning
> nil otherwise.
>
> Closes #3466.
> ---
> Branch: https://github.com/tarantool/tarantool/compare/kshch/gh-3466-tonumber64-strange-behaviour
> Issue: https://github.com/tarantool/tarantool/issues/3466
>
> src/lua/init.c | 6 +++++-
> test/box/misc.result | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
> test/box/misc.test.lua | 8 ++++++++
> 3 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/lua/init.c b/src/lua/init.c
> index 9a96030..4b5285d 100644
> --- a/src/lua/init.c
> +++ b/src/lua/init.c
> @@ -222,7 +222,11 @@ lbox_tonumber64(struct lua_State *L)
> if (argl == 0) {
> lua_pushnil(L);
> } else if (negative) {
> - luaL_pushint64(L, -1 * (long long )result);
> + if (result > -((unsigned long long )LLONG_MIN)) {
1. Please, do not enclose one-line bodies into {}.
2. How can you cast LLONG_MIN (that is negative) to the unsigned type?
3. Why not 'result > LLONG_MAX'? As I understand, abs(LLONG_MAX) == abs(LLONG_MIN),
it is not? (http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/climits/)
4. Why the function is named to64, but we use non-explicitly sized types?
I mean, why not to use uint64_t result, compare with INT64_MAX etc. According to
the C standard, LLONG_MAX is not restricted with 64 bits.
> + lua_pushnil(L);
> + } else {
> + luaL_pushint64(L, -result);
> + }
> } else {
> luaL_pushuint64(L, result);
> }
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [tarantool-patches] Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] lua: fix strange behaviour of tonumber64
2018-07-16 10:23 ` [tarantool-patches] " Vladislav Shpilevoy
@ 2018-07-16 12:49 ` Alexander Turenko
2018-07-16 13:15 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Alexander Turenko @ 2018-07-16 12:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Vladislav Shpilevoy; +Cc: Kirill Shcherbatov, tarantool-patches
Hi, Vlad!
That is interesting discussion. Hope you don't mind my participation.
WBR, Alexander Turenko.
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 01:23:36PM +0300, Vladislav Shpilevoy wrote:
> Thanks for the patch! See 4 comments below.
>
> On 13/07/2018 14:21, Kirill Shcherbatov wrote:
> > Function tonumber64 has worked incorrectly with values less
> > than LLONG_MIN.
> > Now it works in the interval [LLONG_MIN, ULLONG_MAX] returning
> > nil otherwise.
> >
> > Closes #3466.
> > ---
> > Branch: https://github.com/tarantool/tarantool/compare/kshch/gh-3466-tonumber64-strange-behaviour
> > Issue: https://github.com/tarantool/tarantool/issues/3466
> >
> > src/lua/init.c | 6 +++++-
> > test/box/misc.result | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
> > test/box/misc.test.lua | 8 ++++++++
> > 3 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/src/lua/init.c b/src/lua/init.c
> > index 9a96030..4b5285d 100644
> > --- a/src/lua/init.c
> > +++ b/src/lua/init.c
> > @@ -222,7 +222,11 @@ lbox_tonumber64(struct lua_State *L)
> > if (argl == 0) {
> > lua_pushnil(L);
> > } else if (negative) {
> > - luaL_pushint64(L, -1 * (long long )result);
> > + if (result > -((unsigned long long )LLONG_MIN)) {
>
> 1. Please, do not enclose one-line bodies into {}.
>
> 2. How can you cast LLONG_MIN (that is negative) to the unsigned type?
>
Cast does not change bits. It is legal.
> 3. Why not 'result > LLONG_MAX'? As I understand, abs(LLONG_MAX) == abs(LLONG_MIN),
> it is not? (http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/climits/)
>
No, LLONG_MAX is 2^63-1, but LLONG_MIN is -2^63. We want to compare
result with 2^63. We are trying to do so in platform-independent way
(hovewer unsiged unary nimus equivalence with signed one is likely
two-complement number representation property and can be violated on
other platforms).
Are you think we should introduce our own constant
9223372036854775808ULL (2^63) and avoid that complex assumptions set? It
would be explicitly number-representation-dependent, so maybe it is
better.
> 4. Why the function is named to64, but we use non-explicitly sized types?
> I mean, why not to use uint64_t result, compare with INT64_MAX etc. According to
> the C standard, LLONG_MAX is not restricted with 64 bits.
>
Yep, it is better to use INT64_MIN from stdint.h.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [tarantool-patches] Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] lua: fix strange behaviour of tonumber64
2018-07-16 12:49 ` Alexander Turenko
@ 2018-07-16 13:15 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy
2018-07-16 13:42 ` Alexander Turenko
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Vladislav Shpilevoy @ 2018-07-16 13:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alexander Turenko; +Cc: Kirill Shcherbatov, tarantool-patches
On 16/07/2018 15:49, Alexander Turenko wrote:
> Hi, Vlad!
>
> That is interesting discussion. Hope you don't mind my participation.
Hi! Your participation is appreciated!
>
> WBR, Alexander Turenko.
>
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 01:23:36PM +0300, Vladislav Shpilevoy wrote:
>> Thanks for the patch! See 4 comments below.
>>
>> On 13/07/2018 14:21, Kirill Shcherbatov wrote:
>>> Function tonumber64 has worked incorrectly with values less
>>> than LLONG_MIN.
>>> Now it works in the interval [LLONG_MIN, ULLONG_MAX] returning
>>> nil otherwise.
>>>
>>> Closes #3466.
>>> ---
>>> Branch: https://github.com/tarantool/tarantool/compare/kshch/gh-3466-tonumber64-strange-behaviour
>>> Issue: https://github.com/tarantool/tarantool/issues/3466
>>>
>>> src/lua/init.c | 6 +++++-
>>> test/box/misc.result | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
>>> test/box/misc.test.lua | 8 ++++++++
>>> 3 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/src/lua/init.c b/src/lua/init.c
>>> index 9a96030..4b5285d 100644
>>> --- a/src/lua/init.c
>>> +++ b/src/lua/init.c
>>> @@ -222,7 +222,11 @@ lbox_tonumber64(struct lua_State *L)
>>> if (argl == 0) {
>>> lua_pushnil(L);
>>> } else if (negative) {
>>> - luaL_pushint64(L, -1 * (long long )result);
>>> + if (result > -((unsigned long long )LLONG_MIN)) {
>>
>> 1. Please, do not enclose one-line bodies into {}.
>>
>> 2. How can you cast LLONG_MIN (that is negative) to the unsigned type?
>>
>
> Cast does not change bits. It is legal.
Yes, technically it is legal, but casting negative value to an unsigned type
looks weird.
>
>> 3. Why not 'result > LLONG_MAX'? As I understand, abs(LLONG_MAX) == abs(LLONG_MIN),
>> it is not? (http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/climits/)
>>
>
> No, LLONG_MAX is 2^63-1, but LLONG_MIN is -2^63. We want to compare
> result with 2^63. We are trying to do so in platform-independent way
> (hovewer unsiged unary nimus equivalence with signed one is likely
> two-complement number representation property and can be violated on
> other platforms).
>
> Are you think we should introduce our own constant
> 9223372036854775808ULL (2^63) and avoid that complex assumptions set? It
Ultimately no. We should not invent the constants.
> would be explicitly number-representation-dependent, so maybe it is
> better.
Ok. Logically we want an error on -result < INT64_MIN, right?
It is the same as result > -INT64_MIN. But we can not say
-INT64_MIN because abs(INT64_MIN) > INT64_MAX, yes?
Then lets rephrase the comparison:
result > -INT64_MIN
|
v
result + 1 >= -INT64_MIN
|
v
result >= -INT64_MIN - 1
|
v
result >= -(INT64_MIN + 1) <- that is the solution.
As I understand, -(INT64_MIN + 1) is exactly 2^63 - 1 and
fits in int64, right?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [tarantool-patches] Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] lua: fix strange behaviour of tonumber64
2018-07-16 13:15 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy
@ 2018-07-16 13:42 ` Alexander Turenko
2018-07-16 13:55 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Alexander Turenko @ 2018-07-16 13:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Vladislav Shpilevoy; +Cc: Kirill Shcherbatov, tarantool-patches
> >
> > > 3. Why not 'result > LLONG_MAX'? As I understand, abs(LLONG_MAX) == abs(LLONG_MIN),
> > > it is not? (http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/climits/)
> > >
> >
> > No, LLONG_MAX is 2^63-1, but LLONG_MIN is -2^63. We want to compare
> > result with 2^63. We are trying to do so in platform-independent way
> > (hovewer unsiged unary nimus equivalence with signed one is likely
> > two-complement number representation property and can be violated on
> > other platforms).
> >
> > Are you think we should introduce our own constant
> > 9223372036854775808ULL (2^63) and avoid that complex assumptions set? It
>
> Ultimately no. We should not invent the constants.
>
> > would be explicitly number-representation-dependent, so maybe it is
> > better.
>
> Ok. Logically we want an error on -result < INT64_MIN, right?
> It is the same as result > -INT64_MIN. But we can not say
> -INT64_MIN because abs(INT64_MIN) > INT64_MAX, yes?
>
Yes.
> Then lets rephrase the comparison:
>
> result > -INT64_MIN
> |
> v
> result + 1 >= -INT64_MIN
> |
> v
> result >= -INT64_MIN - 1
> |
> v
> result >= -(INT64_MIN + 1) <- that is the solution.
>
> As I understand, -(INT64_MIN + 1) is exactly 2^63 - 1 and
> fits in int64, right?
2nd step should be result - 1 >= -INT64_MIN, so not it is not the
decision. Overflow is unavoidable while we are trying to operate within
the signed type.
WBR, Alexander Turenko.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [tarantool-patches] Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] lua: fix strange behaviour of tonumber64
2018-07-16 13:42 ` Alexander Turenko
@ 2018-07-16 13:55 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy
2018-07-16 14:09 ` Alexander Turenko
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Vladislav Shpilevoy @ 2018-07-16 13:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alexander Turenko; +Cc: Kirill Shcherbatov, tarantool-patches
On 16/07/2018 16:42, Alexander Turenko wrote:
>>>
>>>> 3. Why not 'result > LLONG_MAX'? As I understand, abs(LLONG_MAX) == abs(LLONG_MIN),
>>>> it is not? (http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/climits/)
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, LLONG_MAX is 2^63-1, but LLONG_MIN is -2^63. We want to compare
>>> result with 2^63. We are trying to do so in platform-independent way
>>> (hovewer unsiged unary nimus equivalence with signed one is likely
>>> two-complement number representation property and can be violated on
>>> other platforms).
>>>
>>> Are you think we should introduce our own constant
>>> 9223372036854775808ULL (2^63) and avoid that complex assumptions set? It
>>
>> Ultimately no. We should not invent the constants.
>>
>>> would be explicitly number-representation-dependent, so maybe it is
>>> better.
>>
>> Ok. Logically we want an error on -result < INT64_MIN, right?
>> It is the same as result > -INT64_MIN. But we can not say
>> -INT64_MIN because abs(INT64_MIN) > INT64_MAX, yes?
>>
>
> Yes.
>
>> Then lets rephrase the comparison:
>>
>> result > -INT64_MIN
>> |
>> v
>> result + 1 >= -INT64_MIN
>> |
>> v
>> result >= -INT64_MIN - 1
>> |
>> v
>> result >= -(INT64_MIN + 1) <- that is the solution.
>>
>> As I understand, -(INT64_MIN + 1) is exactly 2^63 - 1 and
>> fits in int64, right?
>
> 2nd step should be result - 1 >= -INT64_MIN, so not it is not the
Oh, stupid error, sorry.
> decision. Overflow is unavoidable while we are trying to operate within
> the signed type.
No, overflow is always avoidable. As an extreme solution we have int96 type,
that is already used for overflow checks on tuple update.
As a second one I again have tried to evolve my idea of reorganization of
result > -INT64_MIN expression:
result > -INT64_MIN
|
v
result - 1 > -INT64_MIN - 1
|
v
INT64_MAX == -INT64_MIN - 1
|
v
result - 1 > INT64_MAX
Here the result is uint64_t. So to check for overflow we use
this predicate:
result != 0 && result - 1 > INT64_MAX.
No type casts, no overflows, explicit sizes.
>
> WBR, Alexander Turenko.
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [tarantool-patches] Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] lua: fix strange behaviour of tonumber64
2018-07-16 13:55 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy
@ 2018-07-16 14:09 ` Alexander Turenko
2018-07-16 16:52 ` Kirill Shcherbatov
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Alexander Turenko @ 2018-07-16 14:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Vladislav Shpilevoy; +Cc: Kirill Shcherbatov, tarantool-patches
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 04:55:51PM +0300, Vladislav Shpilevoy wrote:
>
>
> On 16/07/2018 16:42, Alexander Turenko wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > 3. Why not 'result > LLONG_MAX'? As I understand, abs(LLONG_MAX) == abs(LLONG_MIN),
> > > > > it is not? (http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/climits/)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > No, LLONG_MAX is 2^63-1, but LLONG_MIN is -2^63. We want to compare
> > > > result with 2^63. We are trying to do so in platform-independent way
> > > > (hovewer unsiged unary nimus equivalence with signed one is likely
> > > > two-complement number representation property and can be violated on
> > > > other platforms).
> > > >
> > > > Are you think we should introduce our own constant
> > > > 9223372036854775808ULL (2^63) and avoid that complex assumptions set? It
> > >
> > > Ultimately no. We should not invent the constants.
> > >
> > > > would be explicitly number-representation-dependent, so maybe it is
> > > > better.
> > >
> > > Ok. Logically we want an error on -result < INT64_MIN, right?
> > > It is the same as result > -INT64_MIN. But we can not say
> > > -INT64_MIN because abs(INT64_MIN) > INT64_MAX, yes?
> > >
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > > Then lets rephrase the comparison:
> > >
> > > result > -INT64_MIN
> > > |
> > > v
> > > result + 1 >= -INT64_MIN
> > > |
> > > v
> > > result >= -INT64_MIN - 1
> > > |
> > > v
> > > result >= -(INT64_MIN + 1) <- that is the solution.
> > >
> > > As I understand, -(INT64_MIN + 1) is exactly 2^63 - 1 and
> > > fits in int64, right?
> >
> > 2nd step should be result - 1 >= -INT64_MIN, so not it is not the
>
> Oh, stupid error, sorry.
>
> > decision. Overflow is unavoidable while we are trying to operate within
> > the signed type.
>
> No, overflow is always avoidable. As an extreme solution we have int96 type,
> that is already used for overflow checks on tuple update.
>
> As a second one I again have tried to evolve my idea of reorganization of
> result > -INT64_MIN expression:
>
> result > -INT64_MIN
> |
> v
> result - 1 > -INT64_MIN - 1
> |
> v
> INT64_MAX == -INT64_MIN - 1
> |
> v
> result - 1 > INT64_MAX
>
> Here the result is uint64_t. So to check for overflow we use
> this predicate:
>
> result != 0 && result - 1 > INT64_MAX.
>
> No type casts, no overflows, explicit sizes.
Here we lean on assumption that INT64_MAX == -INT64_MIN - 1, but the
question was arisen because we trying to avoid that. At least it should
be properly commented.
I don't insist, but more like approach with explicit INT64_MIN usage.
By the way, result != 0 check is redundant, because (0ULL - 1) is
0xffffffffffffffff (unsigned value) and above than INT64_MAX.
WBR, Alexander Turenko.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [tarantool-patches] Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] lua: fix strange behaviour of tonumber64
2018-07-16 14:09 ` Alexander Turenko
@ 2018-07-16 16:52 ` Kirill Shcherbatov
2018-07-17 9:35 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Kirill Shcherbatov @ 2018-07-16 16:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: tarantool-patches, Vladislav Shpilevoy
Thank you for review.
===========================================
diff --git a/src/lua/init.c b/src/lua/init.c
index 9a96030..65addc1 100644
--- a/src/lua/init.c
+++ b/src/lua/init.c
@@ -222,7 +222,10 @@ lbox_tonumber64(struct lua_State *L)
if (argl == 0) {
lua_pushnil(L);
} else if (negative) {
- luaL_pushint64(L, -1 * (long long )result);
+ if (result != 0 && result - 1 > INT64_MAX)
+ lua_pushnil(L);
+ else
+ luaL_pushint64(L, -result);
} else {
luaL_pushuint64(L, result);
}
diff --git a/test/box/misc.result b/test/box/misc.result
index f332a8c..fa9926b 100644
--- a/test/box/misc.result
+++ b/test/box/misc.result
@@ -640,6 +640,25 @@ tostring(tonumber64('1234567890123456')) == '1234567890123456ULL'
---
- true
...
+--
+-- gh-3466: Strange behaviour of tonumber64 function
+--
+tostring(tonumber64('18446744073709551615')) == '18446744073709551615ULL'
+---
+- true
+...
+tonumber64('18446744073709551616') == nil
+---
+- true
+...
+tostring(tonumber64('-9223372036854775808')) == '-9223372036854775808LL'
+---
+- true
+...
+tonumber64('-9223372036854775809') == nil
+---
+- true
+...
tonumber64('0x12') == 18
---
- true
diff --git a/test/box/misc.test.lua b/test/box/misc.test.lua
index e24228a..0b4ea21 100644
--- a/test/box/misc.test.lua
+++ b/test/box/misc.test.lua
@@ -165,6 +165,14 @@ tostring(tonumber64('12345678901234')) == '12345678901234'
tostring(tonumber64('123456789012345')) == '123456789012345ULL'
tostring(tonumber64('1234567890123456')) == '1234567890123456ULL'
+--
+-- gh-3466: Strange behaviour of tonumber64 function
+--
+tostring(tonumber64('18446744073709551615')) == '18446744073709551615ULL'
+tonumber64('18446744073709551616') == nil
+tostring(tonumber64('-9223372036854775808')) == '-9223372036854775808LL'
+tonumber64('-9223372036854775809') == nil
+
tonumber64('0x12') == 18
tonumber64('0x12', 16) == 18
tonumber64('0x12', 17) == nil
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [tarantool-patches] Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] lua: fix strange behaviour of tonumber64
2018-07-16 16:52 ` Kirill Shcherbatov
@ 2018-07-17 9:35 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy
2018-07-17 11:27 ` Alexander Turenko
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Vladislav Shpilevoy @ 2018-07-17 9:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kirill Shcherbatov, tarantool-patches
Thanks for the patch!
On 16/07/2018 19:52, Kirill Shcherbatov wrote:
> Thank you for review.
> ===========================================
>
> diff --git a/src/lua/init.c b/src/lua/init.c
> index 9a96030..65addc1 100644
> --- a/src/lua/init.c
> +++ b/src/lua/init.c
> @@ -222,7 +222,10 @@ lbox_tonumber64(struct lua_State *L)
> if (argl == 0) {
> lua_pushnil(L);
> } else if (negative) {
> - luaL_pushint64(L, -1 * (long long )result);
> + if (result != 0 && result - 1 > INT64_MAX)
1. Please, add a comment about the things we have discussed as Alexander asked
in the previous message.
> + lua_pushnil(L);
> + else
> + luaL_pushint64(L, -result);
> } else {
> luaL_pushuint64(L, result);
> }
> diff --git a/test/box/misc.result b/test/box/misc.result
> index f332a8c..fa9926b 100644
> --- a/test/box/misc.result
> +++ b/test/box/misc.result
> @@ -640,6 +640,25 @@ tostring(tonumber64('1234567890123456')) == '1234567890123456ULL'
> ---
> - true
> ...
> +--
> +-- gh-3466: Strange behaviour of tonumber64 function
> +--
> +tostring(tonumber64('18446744073709551615')) == '18446744073709551615ULL'
> +---
> +- true
> +...
> +tonumber64('18446744073709551616') == nil
> +---
> +- true
> +...
> +tostring(tonumber64('-9223372036854775808')) == '-9223372036854775808LL'
> +---
> +- true
> +...
> +tonumber64('-9223372036854775809') == nil
> +---
> +- true
> +...
> tonumber64('0x12') == 18
> ---
> - true
> diff --git a/test/box/misc.test.lua b/test/box/misc.test.lua
> index e24228a..0b4ea21 100644
> --- a/test/box/misc.test.lua
> +++ b/test/box/misc.test.lua
> @@ -165,6 +165,14 @@ tostring(tonumber64('12345678901234')) == '12345678901234'
> tostring(tonumber64('123456789012345')) == '123456789012345ULL'
> tostring(tonumber64('1234567890123456')) == '1234567890123456ULL'
>
> +--
> +-- gh-3466: Strange behaviour of tonumber64 function
> +--
> +tostring(tonumber64('18446744073709551615')) == '18446744073709551615ULL'
> +tonumber64('18446744073709551616') == nil
> +tostring(tonumber64('-9223372036854775808')) == '-9223372036854775808LL'
2. Where is a test for another corner case? I mean INT64_MAX.
> +tonumber64('-9223372036854775809') == nil
> +
> tonumber64('0x12') == 18
> tonumber64('0x12', 16) == 18
> tonumber64('0x12', 17) == nil
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [tarantool-patches] Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] lua: fix strange behaviour of tonumber64
2018-07-17 9:35 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy
@ 2018-07-17 11:27 ` Alexander Turenko
2018-07-17 12:03 ` Kirill Shcherbatov
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Alexander Turenko @ 2018-07-17 11:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kirill Shcherbatov; +Cc: Vladislav Shpilevoy, tarantool-patches
> > +-- gh-3466: Strange behaviour of tonumber64 function
> > +--
> > +tostring(tonumber64('18446744073709551615')) == '18446744073709551615ULL'
> > +tonumber64('18446744073709551616') == nil
> > +tostring(tonumber64('-9223372036854775808')) == '-9223372036854775808LL'
>
> 2. Where is a test for another corner case? I mean INT64_MAX.
>
I also propose to test zero.
WBR, Alexander Turenko.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [tarantool-patches] Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] lua: fix strange behaviour of tonumber64
2018-07-17 11:27 ` Alexander Turenko
@ 2018-07-17 12:03 ` Kirill Shcherbatov
2018-07-17 21:48 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Kirill Shcherbatov @ 2018-07-17 12:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: tarantool-patches, Vladislav Shpilevoy, Alexander Turenko
>>> +-- gh-3466: Strange behaviour of tonumber64 function
>>> +--
>>> +tostring(tonumber64('18446744073709551615')) == '18446744073709551615ULL'
>>> +tonumber64('18446744073709551616') == nil
>> 2. Where is a test for another corner case? I mean INT64_MAX.
Actually, the max value is not INT64_MAX; but UINT64_MAX that is tested above.
But I don't mind to add INT64_MAX test.
+tostring(tonumber64('9223372036854775807')) == '9223372036854775807ULL'
> I also propose to test zero.
+tostring(tonumber64('0')) == '0'
> 1. Please, add a comment about the things we have discussed as Alexander asked
> in the previous message.
+ /*
+ * To test overflow, consider
+ * result > -INT64_MIN;
+ * result - 1 > -INT64_MIN - 1;
+ * Assumption:
+ * INT64_MAX == -(INT64_MIN + 1);
+ * Finally,
+ * result - 1 > INT64_MAX;
+ */
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [tarantool-patches] Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] lua: fix strange behaviour of tonumber64
2018-07-17 12:03 ` Kirill Shcherbatov
@ 2018-07-17 21:48 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy
0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Vladislav Shpilevoy @ 2018-07-17 21:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kirill Shcherbatov, tarantool-patches, Alexander Turenko
Thanks for the fixes! I have fixed the commit
message on the branch. Now the patch LGTM.
On 17/07/2018 15:03, Kirill Shcherbatov wrote:
>>>> +-- gh-3466: Strange behaviour of tonumber64 function
>>>> +--
>>>> +tostring(tonumber64('18446744073709551615')) == '18446744073709551615ULL'
>>>> +tonumber64('18446744073709551616') == nil
>>> 2. Where is a test for another corner case? I mean INT64_MAX.
> Actually, the max value is not INT64_MAX; but UINT64_MAX that is tested above.
> But I don't mind to add INT64_MAX test.
> +tostring(tonumber64('9223372036854775807')) == '9223372036854775807ULL'
>
>> I also propose to test zero.
> +tostring(tonumber64('0')) == '0'
>
>> 1. Please, add a comment about the things we have discussed as Alexander asked
>> in the previous message.
> + /*
> + * To test overflow, consider
> + * result > -INT64_MIN;
> + * result - 1 > -INT64_MIN - 1;
> + * Assumption:
> + * INT64_MAX == -(INT64_MIN + 1);
> + * Finally,
> + * result - 1 > INT64_MAX;
> + */
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [tarantool-patches] Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] lua: fix strange behaviour of tonumber64
2018-07-13 11:21 [tarantool-patches] [PATCH v1 1/1] lua: fix strange behaviour of tonumber64 Kirill Shcherbatov
2018-07-16 10:23 ` [tarantool-patches] " Vladislav Shpilevoy
@ 2018-07-19 10:46 ` Kirill Yukhin
1 sibling, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Kirill Yukhin @ 2018-07-19 10:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: tarantool-patches; +Cc: v.shpilevoy, Kirill Shcherbatov
Hello,
On 13 июл 14:21, Kirill Shcherbatov wrote:
> Function tonumber64 has worked incorrectly with values less
> than LLONG_MIN.
> Now it works in the interval [LLONG_MIN, ULLONG_MAX] returning
> nil otherwise.
>
> Closes #3466.
> ---
> Branch: https://github.com/tarantool/tarantool/compare/kshch/gh-3466-tonumber64-strange-behaviour
> Issue: https://github.com/tarantool/tarantool/issues/3466
I've checked the patch into 1-10 branch.
--
Regards, Kirill Yukhin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2018-07-19 10:46 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2018-07-13 11:21 [tarantool-patches] [PATCH v1 1/1] lua: fix strange behaviour of tonumber64 Kirill Shcherbatov
2018-07-16 10:23 ` [tarantool-patches] " Vladislav Shpilevoy
2018-07-16 12:49 ` Alexander Turenko
2018-07-16 13:15 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy
2018-07-16 13:42 ` Alexander Turenko
2018-07-16 13:55 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy
2018-07-16 14:09 ` Alexander Turenko
2018-07-16 16:52 ` Kirill Shcherbatov
2018-07-17 9:35 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy
2018-07-17 11:27 ` Alexander Turenko
2018-07-17 12:03 ` Kirill Shcherbatov
2018-07-17 21:48 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy
2018-07-19 10:46 ` Kirill Yukhin
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox