[#3068] fix prefixesInRange after uint128_t was moved to checked_uint128_t

2 files changed, 35 insertions, 19 deletions

diff --git a/src/lib/asiolink/addr_utilities.cc b/src/lib/asiolink/addr_utilities.cc
index 9dfbf0b244..5b03349aa1 100644
--- a/src/lib/asiolink/addr_utilities.cc
+++ b/src/lib/asiolink/addr_utilities.cc
@@ -9,9 +9,9 @@
 #include <asiolink/addr_utilities.h>
 #include <exceptions/exceptions.h>
 
-#include <vector>
+#include <cstring>
 #include <limits>
-#include <string.h>
+#include <vector>
 
 using namespace isc;
 using namespace isc::asiolink;
@@ -357,8 +357,9 @@ uint128_t prefixesInRange(const uint8_t pool_len, const uint8_t delegated_len) {
     uint8_t const count(delegated_len - pool_len);
 
     if (count == 128) {
-        // One off is the best we can do, unless we promote to uint256_t.
-        return uint128_t(-1);
+        // UINT128_MAX is one off from the real value, but it is the best we
+        // can do, unless we promote to uint256_t.
+        return std::numeric_limits<uint128_t>::max();
     }
 
     return (uint128_t(1) << count);
diff --git a/src/lib/asiolink/tests/addr_utilities_unittest.cc b/src/lib/asiolink/tests/addr_utilities_unittest.cc
index 30a98170da..4db67cd5c5 100644
--- a/src/lib/asiolink/tests/addr_utilities_unittest.cc
+++ b/src/lib/asiolink/tests/addr_utilities_unittest.cc
@@ -12,11 +12,11 @@
 
 #include <gtest/gtest.h>
 
+#include <cstdint>
+#include <cstdlib>
+#include <limits>
 #include <vector>
 
-#include <stdint.h>
-#include <stdlib.h>
-
 using namespace std;
 using namespace isc::asiolink;
 using namespace isc::util;
@@ -346,27 +346,42 @@ TEST(AddrUtilitiesTest, prefixLengthFromRange6) {
 
 // Checks if prefixInRange returns valid number of prefixes in specified range.
 TEST(AddrUtilitiesTest, prefixesInRange) {
-
     // How many /64 prefixes are in /64 pool?
-    EXPECT_EQ(1, prefixesInRange(64, 64));
+    EXPECT_NO_THROW({
+        EXPECT_EQ(1, prefixesInRange(64, 64));
+    });
 
     // How many /63 prefixes are in /64 pool?
-    EXPECT_EQ(2, prefixesInRange(63, 64));
+    EXPECT_NO_THROW({
+        EXPECT_EQ(2, prefixesInRange(63, 64));
+    });
 
     // How many /64 prefixes are in /48 pool?
-    EXPECT_EQ(65536, prefixesInRange(48, 64));
+    EXPECT_NO_THROW({
+        EXPECT_EQ(65536, prefixesInRange(48, 64));
+    });
 
     // How many /127 prefixes are in /64 pool?
-    EXPECT_EQ(uint64_t(9223372036854775808ull), prefixesInRange(64, 127));
+    EXPECT_NO_THROW({
+        EXPECT_EQ(uint64_t(9223372036854775808ull), prefixesInRange(64, 127));
+    });
 
     // How many /128 prefixes are in /64 pool?
-    EXPECT_EQ(uint128_t(1) << 64, prefixesInRange(64, 128));
-
-    // Let's go overboard again. How many IPv6 addresses are there?
-    EXPECT_EQ(uint128_t(1) << 127, prefixesInRange(1, 128));
-
-    // Let's go overboard again. How many IPv6 addresses are there?
-    EXPECT_EQ(uint128_t(-1), prefixesInRange(0, 128));
+    EXPECT_NO_THROW({
+        EXPECT_EQ(uint128_t(1) << 64, prefixesInRange(64, 128));
+    });
+
+    // Let's go overboard again. How many IPv6 addresses are there in a /1?
+    EXPECT_NO_THROW({
+        EXPECT_EQ(uint128_t(1) << 127, prefixesInRange(1, 128));
+    });
+
+    // Let's go overboard again. How many IPv6 addresses are there? The result is
+    // one off from the real value, but it's preferred rather than having an
+    // overflow_error thrown.
+    EXPECT_NO_THROW({
+        EXPECT_EQ(numeric_limits<uint128_t>::max(), prefixesInRange(0, 128));
+    });
 }
 
 // Checks the function which finds an IPv4 address from input address and offset.