Ok, here's a bit more robust fix. This patch also eliminates the compile
warnings for this file.
Index: interpreter/classes/NumberStringClass.cpp
===================================================================
--- interpreter/classes/NumberStringClass.cpp (revision 11074)
+++ interpreter/classes/NumberStringClass.cpp (working copy)
@@ -2329,8 +2329,8 @@
}
inline bool atEnd() { return current >= end; }
- inline unsigned int getChar() { return (unsigned char)*current;}
- inline unsigned int nextChar() { return (unsigned char)*current++; }
+ inline char getChar() { return *current;}
+ inline char nextChar() { return *current++; }
inline void stepPosition() { current++; }
inline bool moreChars() { return current < end; }
@@ -2366,6 +2366,7 @@
// digit.
scannedDigits = 0;
haveNonZero = false;
+ invalidExponent = false;
}
void addDigit(char d)
@@ -2424,7 +2425,19 @@
void addExponentDigit(char d)
{
- exponent = (exponent * 10) + (d - RexxString::ch_ZERO);
+ wholenumber_t new_exponent = (exponent * 10) + (d -
RexxString::ch_ZERO);
+ // now we need to check for an exponent that is too large or one that
+ // caused an overflow
+ if (new_exponent > Numerics::MAX_EXPONENT || new_exponent < exponent)
+ {
+ // set this to an invalid exponent so we can flag this as
invalid later
+ invalidExponent = true;
+ }
+ else
+ {
+ // this is a good value (so far)
+ exponent = new_exponent;
+ }
}
bool finish()
@@ -2443,15 +2456,27 @@
number->setZero();
return true;
}
+
+ // if the exponent was larger than 9-nines, this is invalid
+ if (invalidExponent)
+ {
+ return false;
+ }
+
// set the count of digits in the number
number->digitsCount = current - number->numberDigits;
// get the final exponent value
number->numberExponent = (exponent * exponentSign) - decimals;
// a couple of final exponent checks
+ // since the number of decimals enters into the exponent, we need to
+ // verify that the calculated exponent did not cause an underflow
if (Numerics::abs(number->numberExponent) > Numerics::MAX_EXPONENT)
{
return false;
}
+
+ // we can also go the other way, where the number of digits
can cause the exponent
+ // to overflow if expressed in scientific notation.
if ((number->numberExponent + number->digitsCount - 1) >
Numerics::MAX_EXPONENT)
{
return false;
@@ -2468,6 +2493,7 @@
wholenumber_t decimals; // the decimal shift on the exponent
wholenumber_t scannedDigits; // indicate we've seen digits
bool haveNonZero; // we've seen a non-zero digit
+ bool invalidExponent; // the exponent is larger than 9-nines
};
@@ -2492,7 +2518,7 @@
NumberStringBuilder builder(this);
// get the current character to start this off
- unsigned int inch = scanner.getChar();
+ char inch = scanner.getChar();
// ok, loop through the token until we've consumed it all.
for (;;)
{
On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 10:06 AM, Erich Steinböck <
[email protected]> wrote:
> Rick, with this patch applied (on both 32- and 64-bit) two failing sign()
> tests uncover the following invalid behaviour:
>
> rexx -e "do e = 1 to 25; n = '0.1e'||1~copies(e); say n~dataType~left(4)
> n; end;"
> NUM 0.1e1
> NUM 0.1e11
> NUM 0.1e111
> NUM 0.1e1111
> NUM 0.1e11111
> NUM 0.1e111111
> NUM 0.1e1111111
> NUM 0.1e11111111
> NUM 0.1e111111111
> NUM 0.1e1111111111
> NUM 0.1e11111111111
> NUM 0.1e111111111111
> NUM 0.1e1111111111111
> NUM 0.1e11111111111111
> NUM 0.1e111111111111111
> NUM 0.1e1111111111111111
> NUM 0.1e11111111111111111
> NUM 0.1e111111111111111111
> NUM 0.1e1111111111111111111
> NUM 0.1e11111111111111111111
> NUM 0.1e111111111111111111111
> NUM 0.1e1111111111111111111111
> NUM 0.1e11111111111111111111111
> NUM 0.1e111111111111111111111111
> NUM 0.1e1111111111111111111111111
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 12:38 AM, Rick McGuire <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Having some issues with building a 32-bit version currently so I can't
>> test this out, but I suspect this patch will fix this problem.
>>
>> Index: interpreter/classes/NumberStringClass.cpp
>> ===================================================================
>> --- interpreter/classes/NumberStringClass.cpp (revision 11070)
>> +++ interpreter/classes/NumberStringClass.cpp (working copy)
>> @@ -2422,9 +2422,31 @@
>> exponentSign = s == RexxString::ch_MINUS ? -1 : 1;
>> }
>>
>> + /**
>> + * Add an exponent digit to this scan. This also validates
>> + * the size of the exponent with each addition.
>> + *
>> + * @param d The next character in the exponent.
>> + */
>> void addExponentDigit(char d)
>> {
>> - exponent = (exponent * 10) + (d - RexxString::ch_ZERO);
>> + // if the exponent is still valid, add this digit
>> + if (exponent <= Numerics::MAX_EXPONENT)
>> + {
>> + wholenumber_t new_exponent = (exponent * 10) + (d -
>> RexxString::ch_ZERO);
>> + // now we need to check for an exponent that is too large or
>> one that
>> + // caused an overflow
>> + if (new_exponent > Numerics::MAX_EXPONENT || new_exponent <
>> exponent)
>> + {
>> + // set this to an invalid exponent so we can flag this as
>> invalid later
>> + exponent = Numerics::MAX_EXPONENT + 1;
>> + }
>> + else
>> + {
>> + // this is a good value (so far)
>> + exponent = new_exponent;
>> + }
>> + }
>> }
>>
>> bool finish()
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Erich Steinböck <
>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> I have a suspicion this test in NumberString::checkIntengerDigits is
>>>> wrong.
>>>>
>>> Yes, that was exactly what was needed!!!
>>> Thanks, saved me a *lot* of time to investigate.
>>>
>>>
>>> Now, there's a strange last one, again 32-bit-only, issue left:
>>>
>>> rexx -e "do e = 1 to 25; n = '123e'||1~copies(e); say n~dataType~left(4)
>>> n; end;"
>>> NUM 123e1
>>> NUM 123e11
>>> NUM 123e111
>>> NUM 123e1111
>>> NUM 123e11111
>>> NUM 123e111111
>>> NUM 123e1111111
>>> NUM 123e11111111
>>> NUM 123e111111111
>>> CHAR 123e1111111111
>>> CHAR 123e11111111111
>>> NUM 123e111111111111
>>> CHAR 123e1111111111111
>>> NUM 123e11111111111111
>>> NUM 123e111111111111111
>>> CHAR 123e1111111111111111
>>> NUM 123e11111111111111111
>>> CHAR 123e111111111111111111
>>> NUM 123e1111111111111111111
>>> CHAR 123e11111111111111111111
>>> NUM 123e111111111111111111111
>>> NUM 123e1111111111111111111111
>>> CHAR 123e11111111111111111111111
>>> CHAR 123e111111111111111111111111
>>> CHAR 123e1111111111111111111111111
>>>
>>>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Attend Shape: An AT&T Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT&T Park in San
> Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries
> present their vision of the future. This family event has something for
> everyone, including kids. Get more information and register today.
> http://sdm.link/attshape
> _______________________________________________
> Oorexx-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attend Shape: An AT&T Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT&T Park in San
Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries
present their vision of the future. This family event has something for
everyone, including kids. Get more information and register today.
http://sdm.link/attshape
_______________________________________________
Oorexx-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
