4 Commits (16)

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Sean Bright	2dce4f6579	conversions.c: Specify that we only want to parse decimal numbers. ... Passing 0 as the last argument to strtoimax() or strtoumax() causes octal and hexadecimal to be accepted which was not originally intended. So we now force to only accept decimal. ASTERISK-29950 #close Change-Id: I93baf0f273441e8280354630a463df263a8c0edd	3 years ago
Kevin Harwell	7b441505dc	conversions: Add string to signed integer conversion functions ... Change-Id: Id603b0b03b78eb84c7fca030a08b343c0d5973f9	5 years ago
Kevin Harwell	edc3e0df1a	conversions.c: Add conversions for largest max sized integer ... Added a conversion for umax (largest maximum sized integer allowed). Adjusted the other current conversion functions (uint and ulong) to be derivatives of the umax conversion since they are simply subsets of umax. Also made the negative check move the pointer on spaces since strtoumax does it anyways. Change-Id: I56c2ef2629d49b524c8df58af12951c181f81f08	6 years ago
Kevin Harwell	51375686f7	core/conversions: Added string to unsigned integer and long conversions ... Added functions that convert a string to an unsigned integer or unsigned long. A couple of unit test were also created to test the routines. The reasons for adding these conversion utilities (and hopefully eventually more) are as follows: * Conversion routines are functionally contained with consistent and better error checking * The function names offer a better description of what is happening * It encourages code reuse for easier bug fixing at a single source * It's simpler to use * It's unit testable For instance, currently in a lot of places when converting to an integer or similar the "sscanf" function is used. When using "sscanf" it may not be immediately clear what's happening as it lacks semantic naming. Limited error checking is usually done as well. For example, most of the time a check is done to make sure the value converted, but does not check for overflows or negative valued conversions when converting unsigned numbers. Why use/wrap "strtoul" and not "sscanf" then? Primarily, it lacks some of the built in error handling that "strtoul" has. For instance "strtoul" contains overflow checks. Less so, but can still factor as reasons, "sscanf" is slightly more complex in its use. And maybe a bit controversial, but it may be ("big if") potentially slower than "strtoul" in some cases. Change-Id: If7eaca4a48f8c7b89cc8b5a1f4bed2852fca82bb	8 years ago