Re: svn commit: r659253 - in /stdcxx/branches/4.2.x: examples/manual/ src/ tests/algorithms/ tests/containers/ tests/localization/ tests/numerics/ tests/regress/ tests/src/ tests/strings/ util/

[Martin Sebor]

Eric Lemings wrote:

[...]

@@ -521,7 +521,7 @@
                     bad_value (optname, optarg);

errno = 0;

-                defaults->timeout = strtol (optarg, &end, 10);

+ defaults->timeout = unsigned (strtol

(optarg, &end, 10));

I suggest using strtoul() here instead.

strtoul() would still cause a conversion warning, wouldn't it?

Oh. I forgot this was a 64-bit conversion warning and not a signed
vs unsigned one. Sorry.

[...]

@@ -581,7 +581,7 @@
                     errno = 0;
                     const long code = strtol (optarg, &end, 10);
                     if ('\0' == *end && !errno)
-                        exit (code);
+                        exit (int (code));

Seems this code (not necessarily the change) could do with some
error checking and reporting...

I noticed the same and not only here but I limited my changes only
to what the issue calls for.

Fully agreed. Unrelated changes should be made in separate patches.

                 }
             }
             else if (   sizeof opt_help - 1 == arglen
@@ -595,7 +595,7 @@

&& !memcmp (opt_sleep, argv [i],

sizeof opt_sleep - 1)) {

/* sleep for the specified number of seconds */ optname = opt_sleep; - optarg = get_long_val (argv, &i, sizeof

opt_sleep - 1);

+ optarg = get_long_val (argv, &i, unsigned

(sizeof opt_sleep - 1));

                 if (optarg && *optarg) {
                     if (!isdigit (*optarg))
                         bad_value (optname, optarg);
@@ -603,7 +603,7 @@
                     errno = 0;
                     const long nsec = strtol (optarg, &end, 10);
                     if ('\0' == *end && 0 <= nsec && !errno) {
-                        rw_sleep (nsec);
+                        rw_sleep (int (nsec));

Same here (e.g., passing in a very large number on the command
line as a result of a scripting error).

I can start filing minor issues for mo' betta range checking
on program options when I find such lax usage in the future.

I wouldn't bother with issues for these little things. If it was
me, I'd just go ahead and fix things in a follow-up change after
committing the warning patch.

Martin