Re: [PATCH 2/2] Support sizes >=2G in various config options accepting 'g' sizes.
From: Nix <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 22:51:58
On 5 Sep 2011, Sverre Rabbelier said:
Heya, On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 13:45, Nix [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
32-bit platforms with no type larger than 'long' cannot detect this case and will continue to silently misbehave, but the misbehaviour will be somewhat different and more useful, since bigFileThreshold was also being mistakenly treated as a signed value when it should have been unsigned.Is it not possible to detect that the target value won't fit in the max size of an int when parsing the config value?
Well, we're parsing longs, not ints. If sizeof(long)>sizeof(int), or we have long long and sizeof(long long)>sizeof(int), then we can always detect overflows when saving into the appropriate type: but if we don't have long long, or if we have neither strto(u)ll() nor strto[ui]max(), we could only detect overflow by looking at the raw text string and checking it by hand to see if it would fit. I judged this pointless extra complexity for a very rare edge case (machines with neither strot(u)ll() nor strto[ui]max() are generally quite old and people aren't going to be specifying sizes in gigabytes on such machines anyway.) -- NULL && (void)