[libvirt] [PATCH] tests: avoid too-large constants

[Daniel P. Berrange]

On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 07:45:16AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> Compiling with gcc 4.1.2 (RHEL 5) complains:
> 
> virdbustest.c: In function 'testMessageSimple':
> virdbustest.c:61: warning: integer constant is too large for 'long' type
> virdbustest.c:62: warning: integer constant is too large for 'long' type
> virdbustest.c: In function 'testMessageArray':
> virdbustest.c:183: warning: this decimal constant is unsigned only in ISO C90
> virdbustest.c: In function 'testMessageStruct':
> virdbustest.c:239: warning: integer constant is too large for 'long' type
> virdbustest.c:240: warning: integer constant is too large for 'long' type
> 
> * tests/virdbustest.c (testMessageSiple, testMessageArray)
> (testMessageStruct): Don't violate C89 constant constraints.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <eblake at redhat.com>
> ---
> 
> Pushing under the build-breaker rule.
> 
>  tests/virdbustest.c | 14 +++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tests/virdbustest.c b/tests/virdbustest.c
> index 61de937..528342b 100644
> --- a/tests/virdbustest.c
> +++ b/tests/virdbustest.c
> @@ -58,8 +58,8 @@ static int testMessageSimple(const void *args ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED)
>      unsigned short in_uint16 = 32000, out_uint16 = 0;
>      int in_int32 = 100000000, out_int32 = 0;
>      unsigned int in_uint32 = 200000000, out_uint32 = 0;
> -    long long in_int64 = 1000000000000, out_int64 = 0;
> -    unsigned long long in_uint64 = 2000000000000, out_uint64 = 0;
> +    long long in_int64 = 1000000000000LL, out_int64 = 0;
> +    unsigned long long in_uint64 = 2000000000000LL, out_uint64 = 0;
>      double in_double = 3.14159265359, out_double = 0;;
>      const char *in_string = "Hello World";
>      char *out_string = NULL;
> @@ -178,9 +178,9 @@ static int testMessageArray(const void *args ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED)
>      DBusMessage *msg = NULL;
>      int ret = -1;
>      const char *in_str1 = "Hello";
> -    int in_int32a = 1000000000, out_int32a = 0;
> -    int in_int32b = 2000000000, out_int32b = 0;
> -    int in_int32c = 3000000000, out_int32c = 0;
> +    int in_int32a = 100000000, out_int32a = 0;
> +    int in_int32b = 200000000, out_int32b = 0;
> +    int in_int32c = 300000000, out_int32c = 0;

I actually intentionally choose 300000000 as a value that would
be above MAX_INT32 (2147483647). I guess what I really should
have done was use something like -2147483640 instead, so we
didn't rely on wrapping of 3000000000. 

Could you change this test to use a large -ve number for the
3rd int, rather than stripping a 0 from all 3.

Daniel
-- 
|: http://berrange.com      -o-    http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org              -o-             http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org       -o-         http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org       -o-       http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|