On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 1:08 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp <[email protected]> wrote: > -------- > In message > <CADe=ujbko6ohS7L=gYj0AhnS1vdqSa5xpFznAg2Us=G=ee1...@mail.gmail.com>, "Devon > H. O'Dell" writes: > >>In case JSON ends up being a thing, [...] > >>Unsure whether strict correctness is required, but it certainly can't >>hurt (especially if folks end up building e.g. VMODs on top of it). > > Thus inspired I just tested my code[1] agains the testsuite, and after > one small tweak[2] it passes all the Yes/No tests. > > The "i_" and transform testcases gets various results: I don't > transform numbers to C numeric types, so I don't find all the ieee64 > overflows, and I'm not being anal about unicode either.
Cool! The unspecified stuff is wiggly; I didn't care much about one way or the other on that, either. > [2] I my check for control-chars in strings I forgot that char is signed. Except when it isn't! Whether "plain" char is signed or unsigned is implementation-defined (§6.2.5p3, §6.3.1.1p3). (But I guess the fix was making the thing unsigned char, so it doesn't matter anyway :)). --dho _______________________________________________ varnish-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-dev
