Fix: peekNumber rejects some numerals like 2^64 + "0"#3034
Merged
eamonnmcmanus merged 2 commits intoJun 4, 2026
Conversation
Issue: the "leading zero" logic in peekNumber, which tries to reject octal representations, does not account for long overflows. This results in valid numeric literals like "184467440737095516160" (2^64 + "0") being rejected in STRICT parsing mode. The easiest way to reproduce this is to serialize and deserialize a BigInteger with the value above. This is a minimal fix which adds an overflow check to the leading zero condition.
eamonnmcmanus
approved these changes
Jun 4, 2026
eamonnmcmanus
left a comment
eamonnmcmanus
left a comment
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks, that's a great catch!
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Issue: the "leading zero" logic in
peekNumber, which tries to reject octal representations, does not account for long overflows. This results in valid numeric literals like "184467440737095516160" (2^64 + "0") being rejected inSTRICTparsing mode.The easiest way to reproduce this is to serialize and deserialize a
BigIntegerwith the value above.This is a minimal fix which adds an overflow check to the leading zero condition.