From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: babbusandy2006@gmail.com (Sandeep K Chaudhary)
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2014 21:57:30 -0700
Subject: [lttng-dev] Regarding Bug #633 - utils_parse_size_suffix
 suffers from several problems
In-Reply-To: <20140325142250.GA7702@thessa>
References: <CAEEAEzW+g222Z1Lhem2W=UpVrNnc7m+=4OULcRXH3J1gqmYqrw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20140325142250.GA7702@thessa>
Message-ID: <CAEEAEzVTQVNjbUVy007322WeAm1jrE50i6ePAPMaGnh5iM0KOw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi David,

Add the unit tests for the changes. Please have a look at the following
diff for the changes in unit test file.

40,44d39
<               { "0X400", 1024 },
<               { "0x40a", 1034 },
<               { "0X40b", 1035 },
<               { "0x40e", 1038 },
<               { "0X40f", 1039 },
55c50
< static char *invalid_tests_inputs[] = { "", "-1", "k", "08", "09",
"4611686018427387904G" };
---
> static char *invalid_tests_inputs[] = { "", "-1", "k",
"4611686018427387904G" };


Thanks and regards,
Sandeep.


On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 7:22 AM, David Goulet <dgoulet at efficios.com> wrote:

> On 21 Mar (00:22:57), Sandeep K Chaudhary wrote:
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > I checked the fix suggested in the bug description and it is correct.
> >
> > Changing
> >
> > ret = regcomp(&regex,
> "^\\(0x\\)\\{0,1\\}[0-9][0-9]*\\([kKMG]\\{0,1\\}\\)$", 0);
> >
> > to
> >
> > ret = regcomp(&regex,
> > "^(((0x|0X)[0-9A-Fa-f]+)|(0[0-7]*)|([1-9][0-9]*))[kKMG]?$",
> REG_EXTENDED);
> >
> > will take care of the following three problems that exist in the first
> regex
> >
> >
> >    - It accepts a leading 0 (without a following x or X) to represent an
> >    octal value, but simultaneously accepts the digits 8 and 9 in said
> octal
> >    value (this yields -1).
> >    - It does not support the leading 0X hexadecimal indicator but does
> >    support a leading 0x (see following).
> >    - It accepts a leading 0x to represent an hexadecimal value but
> rejects
> >    the a..f and A..F digits in said value.
> >
> >
> > Please let me know your views, and then I can submit a patch for this.
>
> Unfortunately I don't speak regex well enough to tell you if this is
> absolutely correct but what you should do with your patch is add unit
> test(s) that fix the three problems you list here.
>
> Most probably in:
>
>         tests/unit/test_utils_parse_size_suffix.c
>
> Cheers!
> David
>
> >
> > Thanks and regards,
> > Sandeep.
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > lttng-dev mailing list
> > lttng-dev at lists.lttng.org
> > http://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev
>
>


-- 
Thanks and regards,
Sandeep K Chaudhary.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lttng.org/pipermail/lttng-dev/attachments/20140330/dcf57efd/attachment.html>