Hi Peter,
/* process digits */
+ if (ptr[0] == '0' && (ptr[1] == 'x' || ptr[1] == 'X'))
+ {
+ ptr += 2;
+ while (*ptr && isxdigit((unsigned char) *ptr))
+ {
+ int8 digit = hexlookup[(unsigned char) *ptr];
+
+ if (unlikely(pg_mul_s16_overflow(tmp, 16, &tmp)) ||
+ unlikely(pg_sub_s16_overflow(tmp, digit, &tmp)))
+ goto out_of_range;
+
+ ptr++;
+ }
+ }
+ else if (ptr[0] == '0' && (ptr[1] == 'o' || ptr[1] == 'O'))
+ {
+ ptr += 2;
+
+ while (*ptr && (*ptr >= '0' && *ptr <= '7'))
+ {
+ int8 digit = (*ptr++ - '0');
+
+ if (unlikely(pg_mul_s16_overflow(tmp, 8, &tmp)) ||
+ unlikely(pg_sub_s16_overflow(tmp, digit, &tmp)))
+ goto out_of_range;
+ }
+ }
+ else if (ptr[0] == '0' && (ptr[1] == 'b' || ptr[1] == 'B'))
+ {
+ ptr += 2;
+
+ while (*ptr && (*ptr >= '0' && *ptr <= '1'))
+ {
+ int8 digit = (*ptr++ - '0');
+
+ if (unlikely(pg_mul_s16_overflow(tmp, 2, &tmp)) ||
+ unlikely(pg_sub_s16_overflow(tmp, digit, &tmp)))
+ goto out_of_range;
+ }
+ }
+ else
+ {
while (*ptr && isdigit((unsigned char) *ptr))
{
int8 digit = (*ptr++ - '0');
@@ -128,6 +181,7 @@ pg_strtoint16(const char *s)
unlikely(pg_sub_s16_overflow(tmp, digit, &tmp)))
goto out_of_range;
}
+ }
What do you think if we move these code into a static inline function? like:
static inline char*
process_digits(char *ptr, int32 *result)
{
...
}
On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 10:17 PM Peter Eisentraut
<peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
> On 16.02.22 11:11, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > The remaining patches are material for PG16 at this point, and I will
> > set the commit fest item to returned with feedback in the meantime.
>
> Time to continue with this.
>
> Attached is a rebased and cleaned up patch for non-decimal integer
> literals. (I don't include the underscores-in-numeric literals patch.
> I'm keeping that for later.)
>
> Two open issues from my notes:
>
> Technically, numeric_in() should be made aware of this, but that seems
> relatively complicated and maybe not necessary for the first iteration.
>
> Taking another look around ecpg to see how this interacts with C-syntax
> integer literals. I'm not aware of any particular issues, but it's
> understandably tricky.
>
> Other than that, this seems pretty complete as a start.
--
Regards
Junwang Zhao
