<div dir="ltr">Hi David,<div><br></div><div>Sorry for the delay in my response. I was away from school.</div><div><br></div><div>Here is the diff for changes made to the unit test. Please have a look.</div><div><br></div><div>
<div>index 3b9c68c..61124ff 100644</div><div>--- a/test_utils_parse_size_suffix.c.bkup</div><div>+++ b/test_utils_parse_size_suffix.c</div><div>@@ -37,6 +37,11 @@ static struct valid_test_input valid_tests_inputs[] = {</div>
<div> { "0", 0 },</div><div> { "1234", 1234 },</div><div> { "0x400", 1024 },</div><div>+ { "0X400", 1024 },</div><div>+ { "0x40a", 1034 },</div>
<div>+ { "0X40b", 1035 },</div><div>+ { "0x40e", 1038 },</div><div>+ { "0X40f", 1039 },</div><div> { "0300", 192 },</div><div>
{ "16k", 16384 },</div><div> { "128K", 131072 },</div><div>@@ -47,7 +52,7 @@ static struct valid_test_input valid_tests_inputs[] = {</div><div> static const int num_valid_tests = sizeof(valid_tests_inputs) / sizeof(valid_tests_inputs[0]);</div>
<div> </div><div> /* Invalid test cases */</div><div>-static char *invalid_tests_inputs[] = { "", "-1", "k", "4611686018427387904G" };</div><div>+static char *invalid_tests_inputs[] = { "", "-1", "k", "08", "09", "4611686018427387904G" };</div>
<div> static const int num_invalid_tests = sizeof(invalid_tests_inputs) / sizeof(invalid_tests_inputs[0]);</div><div> </div><div> static void test_utils_parse_size_suffix(void)</div></div><div><br></div><div>Thanks and regards,<br>
Sandeep.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 8:06 AM, David Goulet <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dgoulet@efficios.com" target="_blank">dgoulet@efficios.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="">On 30 Mar (21:57:30), Sandeep K Chaudhary wrote:<br>
> Hi David,<br>
><br>
> Add the unit tests for the changes. Please have a look at the following<br>
> diff for the changes in unit test file.<br>
><br>
> 40,44d39<br>
> < { "0X400", 1024 },<br>
> < { "0x40a", 1034 },<br>
> < { "0X40b", 1035 },<br>
> < { "0x40e", 1038 },<br>
> < { "0X40f", 1039 },<br>
> 55c50<br>
> < static char *invalid_tests_inputs[] = { "", "-1", "k", "08", "09",<br>
> "4611686018427387904G" };<br>
> ---<br>
> > static char *invalid_tests_inputs[] = { "", "-1", "k",<br>
> "4611686018427387904G" };<br>
<br>
</div>Can you attach a diff patch to the issue please?<br>
<br>
Use "git diff" since the default "diff" command output is a bit<br>
unreadable for my passionate git eye :).<br>
<br>
Thanks!<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">David<br>
<br>
><br>
><br>
> Thanks and regards,<br>
> Sandeep.<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 7:22 AM, David Goulet <<a href="mailto:dgoulet@efficios.com">dgoulet@efficios.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> > On 21 Mar (00:22:57), Sandeep K Chaudhary wrote:<br>
> > > Hi guys,<br>
> > ><br>
> > > I checked the fix suggested in the bug description and it is correct.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > Changing<br>
> > ><br>
> > > ret = regcomp(®ex,<br>
> > "^\\(0x\\)\\{0,1\\}[0-9][0-9]*\\([kKMG]\\{0,1\\}\\)$", 0);<br>
> > ><br>
> > > to<br>
> > ><br>
> > > ret = regcomp(®ex,<br>
> > > "^(((0x|0X)[0-9A-Fa-f]+)|(0[0-7]*)|([1-9][0-9]*))[kKMG]?$",<br>
> > REG_EXTENDED);<br>
> > ><br>
> > > will take care of the following three problems that exist in the first<br>
> > regex<br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > > - It accepts a leading 0 (without a following x or X) to represent an<br>
> > > octal value, but simultaneously accepts the digits 8 and 9 in said<br>
> > octal<br>
> > > value (this yields -1).<br>
> > > - It does not support the leading 0X hexadecimal indicator but does<br>
> > > support a leading 0x (see following).<br>
> > > - It accepts a leading 0x to represent an hexadecimal value but<br>
> > rejects<br>
> > > the a..f and A..F digits in said value.<br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > > Please let me know your views, and then I can submit a patch for this.<br>
> ><br>
> > Unfortunately I don't speak regex well enough to tell you if this is<br>
> > absolutely correct but what you should do with your patch is add unit<br>
> > test(s) that fix the three problems you list here.<br>
> ><br>
> > Most probably in:<br>
> ><br>
> > tests/unit/test_utils_parse_size_suffix.c<br>
> ><br>
> > Cheers!<br>
> > David<br>
> ><br>
> > ><br>
> > > Thanks and regards,<br>
> > > Sandeep.<br>
> ><br>
> > > _______________________________________________<br>
> > > lttng-dev mailing list<br>
> > > <a href="mailto:lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org">lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org</a><br>
> > > <a href="http://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev" target="_blank">http://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev</a><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
><br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Thanks and regards,<br>
> Sandeep K Chaudhary.<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>Thanks and regards,<br>Sandeep K Chaudhary.
</div>