qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH V4 2/5] qapi: add event helper functions


From: Markus Armbruster
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH V4 2/5] qapi: add event helper functions
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 09:21:40 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2 (gnu/linux)

Eric Blake <address@hidden> writes:

> On 03/27/2014 02:03 AM, Wenchao Xia wrote:
>> This file holds some functions that do not need to be generated.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Wenchao Xia <address@hidden>
>> ---
>>  include/qapi/qmp-event.h |   27 +++++++++++++++++
>>  qapi/Makefile.objs       |    1 +
>>  qapi/qmp-event.c         |   70 
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  3 files changed, 98 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>  create mode 100644 include/qapi/qmp-event.h
>>  create mode 100644 qapi/qmp-event.c
>> 
>
>> +    err = qemu_gettimeofday(&tv);
>> +    if (err < 0) {
>> +        /* Put -1 to indicate failure of getting host time */
>> +        tv.tv_sec = -1;
>> +        tv.tv_usec = -1;
>
> You fixed the problem with C promotion here, but...
>
>> +    }
>> +
>> +    obj = qobject_from_jsonf("{ 'seconds': %" PRId64 ", "
>> +                             "'microseconds': %" PRId64 " }",
>> +                             (int64_t) tv.tv_sec, (int64_t) tv.tv_usec);
>
> ...here, C promotion rules bite once again :(  If tv_usec is uint32_t,
> then it zero-extends rather than sign-extends into int64_t, and you may
> end up with 0xffffffff instead of the intended -1.  When doing
> potentially widening casts, it is only safe if you know the signedness
> of the pre-cast value; but with struct timeval, POSIX doesn't make that
> easy.
>
> Maybe it's easier to just rewrite things with known types:
>
> int64_t sec;
> int usec;
> qemu_timval tv;
> err = qemu_gettimeofday(&tv);
> if (err < 0) {
>     sec = -1;
>     usec = -1;
> } else {
>     sec = tv.tv_sec;
>     usec = tv.tv_usec;
> }
> qobject_from_jsonf("... %"PRId64 ", ...%d", sec, usec)
>
> since 'int' is guaranteed to be large enough for all the usec values we
> care about on all platforms we compile on (that is, we require 32-bit
> int, even if C allows for a 16-bit int implementation).

If you go that route, then why not go all the way nad make both sec and
usec int64_t?  Look ma, no type casts!



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]