On 7/1/25 12:55 PM, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 29, 2025 at 01:50:39PM +0200, René Scharfe wrote:
>> diff --git a/parse-options.c b/parse-options.c
>> index da07a000a3..bbb68603cc 100644
>> --- a/parse-options.c
>> +++ b/parse-options.c
>> @@ -85,6 +85,36 @@ static intmax_t get_int_value(const struct option *opt)
>> }
>> }
>>
>> +static enum parse_opt_result set_int_value(const struct option *opt,
>> + enum opt_parsed flags,
>> + intmax_t value)
>> +{
>> + switch (opt->precision) {
>> + case sizeof(int8_t):
>> + *(int8_t *)opt->value = value;
>> + return 0;
>> + case sizeof(int16_t):
>> + *(int16_t *)opt->value = value;
>> + return 0;
>> + case sizeof(int32_t):
>> + *(int32_t *)opt->value = value;
>> + return 0;
>> + case sizeof(int64_t):
>> + *(int64_t *)opt->value = value;
>> + return 0;
>> + default:
>> + BUG("invalid precision for option %s", optname(opt, flags));
>> + }
>> +}
>
> The function only ever dies or returns successfully, so can't we make it
> return nothing instead? On the other hand it does make a couple of
> callsites a bit nicer to read.
We can. Not sure we should, obviously, but I don't have strong feelings
either way.
>
>> +static int signed_int_fits(intmax_t value, size_t size)
>> +{
>> + size_t bits = size * CHAR_BIT;
>> + intmax_t upper_bound = INTMAX_MAX >> (bitsizeof(intmax_t) - bits);
>> + intmax_t lower_bound = -upper_bound - 1;
>> + return lower_bound <= value && value <= upper_bound;
>> +}
>> +
>
> Should we s/size/precision/ so that it's clear what kind of size this
> exactly is?
It's the width of an integer variable as in sizeof(), so the name fits.
We can inline this single-caller function if it's indeed confusing.
René
