Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: wfmath - WorldForge math libraries Alias: wfmath https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198829 j.w.r.degoede@xxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |j.w.r.degoede@xxxxxx ------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede@xxxxxx 2006-07-19 03:41 EST ------- I saw the long list of review request for worldforge, so I thought I would give a hand. But as usual you guys (Chris this time) have beaten my to it. So I saw this 64bit problem and I thought I would/could give a hand. The test fails because of 2 problems 1) wfmath/MersenneTwister.h, line 77 says: typedef unsigned long uint32; // unsigned integer type, at least 32 bits Which is strange, because you would expect a uint32 to be 32 bits period, I've reviewed the rest of the code and it seems to assume 32bits everywhere/ never return random values larger then 32 bit, so I believe this should be changed to: typedef unsigned int uint32; This makes things work out as the name suggests and will also be faster since 32 bit values are faster then 64 bit (even on x86_64). 2) wfmath/intstring_test.cpp, second test uses a long to restore the unsigned long value of the random function. The idea here is to cause negative numbers for 2^31 unsigned long numbers to test negative conversion however > 2 ^ 31 will fit fine in the long on 64 bits, without becoming a negative number. Next this long is passed to IntToString, who correctly converts this to a string holding a large (> 2 ^ 31) positive number, after which the string gets passed to atoi. However atoi returns an int which cannot represent this bug a positive number > caboom! Fix use (unsigned) int 's in the test instead of long's. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review