Hi Dmitry,
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dmitry Stogov"
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009
Hi Matt,
I tried to look into this issue once again, but I completely misunderstand
why do we need all this magic. Why do we need conversion of positive
double into negative long?
I don't really have any more information than what has been given in my
various earlier messages that I've referenced. :-) But it's no problem!
It's probably too much to keep track of, or try to find which message I said
something in, I know (I have to do that myself to refresh memory about some
parts). So feel free to ask for an explanation about anything. :-)
OK, regarding conversion of postive double into negative long (or it could
be positive if it "rolls over" again above ULONG_MAX, etc...): 1) for me,
the original issue I noticed, is preserving the least significant bits when
using bitwise AND on a large number (old ref again: [1]). Although now I
know the 5.2 behavior I was getting can't be relied on (<= ULONG_MAX it's
probably OK however), that's what I'm trying to do -- make conversions
consistent and reliable. And 2) unsigned specifiers in sprintf() (%u, %x,
etc.) rely on this conversion (though it currently *won't work* in 5.3 on
64-bit non-Windows). See references in Bugs #30695 and #42868.
[1] http://marc.info/?l=php-internals&m=120799720922202&w=2
The magic (different methods...?) is needed depending on what type of
conversion works on a platform. BTW, I wasn't satisfied with what I ended
up with for my patch (unsure about how some things would behave, some
guessing), so a few days ago I started to try coming up with something more
complete and precise depending on what works on a platform. Not done yet,
and will need to add some configure checks, etc. (new for me).
I would stay with single DVAL_TO_LVAL() definition and use it in places
instead of (long)Z_DVAL().
That (single DVAL_TO_LVAL()) is basically what 5.2 has now until you added
more definitions (from Zoe) ;-) (which behave differently [2]) for 5.3 in
Nov '07 for Bug #42868.
[2] http://marc.info/?l=php-internals&m=123496364812725&w=2
#define DVAL_TO_LVAL(d, l) \
if ((d) > LONG_MAX) { \
(l) = LONG_MAX; \
} else if ((d) < LONG_MIN) { \
(l) = LONG_MIN; \
} else {\
(l) = (long) (d); \
}
That's close to 5.3's new version (depending which is used for a platform),
and *precisely* what was committed to zend_operators.c in Sep '04 (v1.195
"Resolve undefined behavior (joe at redhat)" [3]). After Bug #30695, it was
reverted in Nov: v1.203 "Revert Joe's work around a bug in GCC patch as it
breaks too many things." [4]
[3]
http://cvs.php.net/viewvc.cgi/ZendEngine2/zend_operators.c?r1=1.194&r2=1.195&view=patch
[4]
http://cvs.php.net/viewvc.cgi/ZendEngine2/zend_operators.c?r1=1.202&r2=1.203&view=patch
- Matt
Or may be we need a second macro for conversion into unsigned long where
it needed?
#define DVAL_TO_ULONG(d, l) \
if ((d) > ULONG_MAX) { \
(l) = ULONG_MAX; \
} else if ((d) < 0) { \
(l) = 0; \
} else {\
(l) = (unsigned long) (d); \
}
It also possible to add notices in case of overflow detection.
Thanks. Dmitry.
Matt Wilmas wrote:
Hi all,
Since noticing and reporting last year [1] different behavior when
casting out-of-range doubles to int after the DVAL_TO_LVAL() macro was
updated, I've wondered how to get the behavior I observed, and thought
could be relied on (that was wrong to think, since it was un- or
implementation-defined), back. And how to do so (what should be
expected?), while keeping in mind the reason for the change: consistent
behavior for tests. [2] Except that the current code does not give
consistent results, depending on which DVAL_TO_LVAL definition is used on
a platform. [3]
[1] http://marc.info/?l=php-internals&m=120799720922202&w=2
[2] http://marc.info/?l=php-internals&m=123495655802226&w=2
[3] http://marc.info/?l=php-internals&m=123496364812725&w=2
So after I finally started to test my ideas for "consistent/reliable
overflow across platforms" a few days ago, I noticed that my workaround
technique quit working (0 instead of overflow) with doubles over 2^63,
without resorting to fmod(). That's on Windows, but I suspect the same
may happen on other systems that are limited to 64-bit integer processing
internally or something (32-bit platforms?). On 64-bit Linux anyway, it
looks like doubles > 2^63 do rollover as expected (128-bit "internal
processing?"): http://marc.info/?l=php-internals&m=123376495021789&w=2
I wasn't sure how to rethink things after that... But of course with
doubles, precision has been lost long before 2^63 anyway, as far as
increments of 1 (it's 1024 at 2^63).
What I wound up with for now, is using 5.2's method on 64-bit platforms,
and on 32-bit, overflow behavior should be reliable up to 2^63 on
platforms that have zend_long64 type available (long long, __int64),
which I'm guessing is most (?), because of the unsigned long involvement.
Finally a fallback workaround for 32-bit platforms without a 64-bit type.
I updated a few other places in the code where only a (long) cast was
used. And sort of unrelated, but I added an 'L' conversion specifier for
zend_parse_parameters() in case it would be useful for PHP functions that
want to limit values to LONG_MAX/LONG_MIN, without overflow, which I
thought the DVAL_TO_LVAL change was *trying* to do.
http://realplain.com/php/dval_to_lval.diff
http://realplain.com/php/dval_to_lval_5_3.diff
And here is an initial version of zend_dval_to_lval() (before 2^63 issue
and thinking of zend_long64 + unsigned long), where some configure checks
would set ZEND_DVAL_TO_LVAL_USE_* as needed.
http://realplain.com/php/dval_to_lval.txt
Any general feedback, comments, questions, suggestions? Hoping these
conversion issues could be sorted out for good in a "nice," logical way.
:-) Unfortunately on Windows, I'm just guessing, rather than testing,
conversion results in different environments...
Thanks,
Matt
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
