Fix for 32 bit C++ compile error.

Fix for 32 bit C++ compile error.

With strict error checking, 32 bit compiles on some platforms fail with
the error:

    "error: this decimal constant is unsigned only in ISO C90"

This patch fixes the error by adding the "u" unsigned qualifier to the
integers.

Author: daniel@pocock.pro

R=jia.shao.peng@gmail.com, lararennie@google.com
BUG=

Committed: https://code.google.com/p/libphonenumber/source/detail?r=686

[Shaopeng, 2014-08-20 08:08:35]

https://codereview.appspot.com/123610044/diff/1/cpp/test/phonenumbers/geocodi...
File cpp/test/phonenumbers/geocoding/phonenumber_offline_geocoder_test.cc
(right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/123610044/diff/1/cpp/test/phonenumbers/geocodi...
cpp/test/phonenumbers/geocoding/phonenumber_offline_geocoder_test.cc:61:
BS_NUMBER1(MakeNumber(1, 2423651234UL)),
why don't we need U for other integers (e.g. 2128120000 and 6509600000, etc.?)

[daniel2, 2014-08-20 08:16:14]

On 20/08/14 10:08, jia.shao.peng@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
https://codereview.appspot.com/123610044/diff/1/cpp/test/phonenumbers/geocodi...
>
> File
> cpp/test/phonenumbers/geocoding/phonenumber_offline_geocoder_test.cc
> (right):
>
>
https://codereview.appspot.com/123610044/diff/1/cpp/test/phonenumbers/geocodi...
>
> cpp/test/phonenumbers/geocoding/phonenumber_offline_geocoder_test.cc:61:
> BS_NUMBER1(MakeNumber(1, 2423651234UL)),
> why don't we need U for other integers (e.g. 2128120000 and 6509600000,
> etc.?)

I only got the errors for lines 61 and 63

6509600000 is bigger than the maximum 32 bit unsigned value (which is
0xffffffff or 4294967295 decimal) so the compiler has hopefully worked
out that it has to be a 64 bit value.  As a 64 bit value, it can be
represented correctly signed or unsigned.

It is easy to see which is bigger by putting the numbers on top of each
other:

6509600000
4294967295

[Shaopeng, 2014-08-20 08:33:25]

Ok. I am sure I won't be the last person asking this question when looking
at this file.

Would it be worth adding U to all the numbers in this file to be
consistent, so that when someone needs to add another test later, she
doesn't need to decide if a U is needed or not?


2014-08-20 10:16 GMT+02:00 Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.pro>:

> On 20/08/14 10:08, jia.shao.peng@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >
>
https://codereview.appspot.com/123610044/diff/1/cpp/test/phonenumbers/geocodi...
> >
> > File
> > cpp/test/phonenumbers/geocoding/phonenumber_offline_geocoder_test.cc
> > (right):
> >
> >
>
https://codereview.appspot.com/123610044/diff/1/cpp/test/phonenumbers/geocodi...
> >
> > cpp/test/phonenumbers/geocoding/phonenumber_offline_geocoder_test.cc:61:
> > BS_NUMBER1(MakeNumber(1, 2423651234UL)),
> > why don't we need U for other integers (e.g. 2128120000 and 6509600000,
> > etc.?)
>
> I only got the errors for lines 61 and 63
>
> 6509600000 is bigger than the maximum 32 bit unsigned value (which is
> 0xffffffff or 4294967295 decimal) so the compiler has hopefully worked
> out that it has to be a 64 bit value.  As a 64 bit value, it can be
> represented correctly signed or unsigned.
>
> It is easy to see which is bigger by putting the numbers on top of each
> other:
>
> 6509600000
> 4294967295
>
>
>

[daniel2, 2014-08-20 08:40:25]

On 20/08/14 10:33, Shaopeng wrote:
> Ok. I am sure I won't be the last person asking this question when
> looking at this file.
>
> Would it be worth adding U to all the numbers in this file to be
> consistent, so that when someone needs to add another test later, she
> doesn't need to decide if a U is needed or not?
>

I would agree that would make it easier for developers to remain
consistent with the C coding expectations for a wider variety of
architectures.  It should not cause any harm and anybody cutting and
pasting to create new tests in this class will hopefully cut and paste
with the "u"

In practice, I don't feel that a numeric data type is really appropriate
for a phone number and maybe in libphonenumber7 it should just use
strings.  For API compatibility libphonenumber6 should continue using
numeric types here.

[roubert (google), 2014-08-21 15:52:12]

https://codereview.appspot.com/123610044/diff/1/cpp/test/phonenumbers/geocodi...
File cpp/test/phonenumbers/geocoding/phonenumber_offline_geocoder_test.cc
(right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/123610044/diff/1/cpp/test/phonenumbers/geocodi...
cpp/test/phonenumbers/geocoding/phonenumber_offline_geocoder_test.cc:61:
BS_NUMBER1(MakeNumber(1, 2423651234UL)),
I've now updated all phone number integer literals to be declared as UL.

[Shaopeng, 2014-08-22 14:32:14]

On 2014/08/21 15:52:12, roubert (google) wrote:
>
https://codereview.appspot.com/123610044/diff/1/cpp/test/phonenumbers/geocodi...
> File cpp/test/phonenumbers/geocoding/phonenumber_offline_geocoder_test.cc
> (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.appspot.com/123610044/diff/1/cpp/test/phonenumbers/geocodi...
> cpp/test/phonenumbers/geocoding/phonenumber_offline_geocoder_test.cc:61:
> BS_NUMBER1(MakeNumber(1, 2423651234UL)),
> I've now updated all phone number integer literals to be declared as UL.

LGTM.

[roubert (google), 2014-08-22 14:33:15]

Committed patchset #2 manually as 686 (presubmit successful).