summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/apps
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorKevin Harwell <kharwell@digium.com>2017-05-15 13:25:43 -0500
committerKevin Harwell <kharwell@digium.com>2017-05-17 17:41:11 -0500
commit51375686f7c42f14b979b8e70bc5a8c7c32da890 (patch)
treeefef26475eea7cdac01d066c1ef8650233198576 /apps
parente74c48a46fd65a02ec98440b789ebebd2d8ed1d1 (diff)
core/conversions: Added string to unsigned integer and long conversions
Added functions that convert a string to an unsigned integer or unsigned long. A couple of unit test were also created to test the routines. The reasons for adding these conversion utilities (and hopefully eventually more) are as follows: * Conversion routines are functionally contained with consistent and better error checking * The function names offer a better description of what is happening * It encourages code reuse for easier bug fixing at a single source * It's simpler to use * It's unit testable For instance, currently in a lot of places when converting to an integer or similar the "sscanf" function is used. When using "sscanf" it may not be immediately clear what's happening as it lacks semantic naming. Limited error checking is usually done as well. For example, most of the time a check is done to make sure the value converted, but does not check for overflows or negative valued conversions when converting unsigned numbers. Why use/wrap "strtoul" and not "sscanf" then? Primarily, it lacks some of the built in error handling that "strtoul" has. For instance "strtoul" contains overflow checks. Less so, but can still factor as reasons, "sscanf" is slightly more complex in its use. And maybe a bit controversial, but it may be ("big if") potentially slower than "strtoul" in some cases. Change-Id: If7eaca4a48f8c7b89cc8b5a1f4bed2852fca82bb
Diffstat (limited to 'apps')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions