Extend net/base/parse_number.h for parsing of negative numbers, and determining if there was overflo

net/base/sdch_manager.cc

Index: net/base/sdch_manager.cc
diff --git a/net/base/sdch_manager.cc b/net/base/sdch_manager.cc
index 435977237d83d4856008b9c442bf3946f3c36091..20dd1d247a2e634a60eee86896f4099a1c304d8f 100644
--- a/net/base/sdch_manager.cc
+++ b/net/base/sdch_manager.cc
@@ -382,7 +382,7 @@ SdchProblemCode SdchManager::AddSdchDictionary(
         expiration = base::Time::Now() + base::TimeDelta::FromSeconds(seconds);
       } else if (name == "port") {
         int port;
-        if (ParseNonNegativeDecimalInt(value, &port))
+        if (ParseIntegerBase10(value, ParseInteger::DISALLOW_NEGATIVE, &port))
           ports.insert(port);

[eroman, 2016/03/25 17:08:09]

Side-observation: This is currently weird in that it will accept ports larger
than 0xFFFF.

Not planning to fix this in this CL.

Probably the right fix is to consistently use uint16_t for port numbers, and let
parsing just enforce correct range on uint16_t here. But there is more work to
be done to use uint16_t over int in places that use ports. (But I have noticed
that in a number of places we use int for ports. I guess in part the allure of
having -1 to mean "unspecified").

[mmenke, 2016/03/25 17:36:32]

I'm actually not sure that's the right behavior...This code has a remarkable
lack of failure cases, but I think we'd want to hard-fail in that case. 
Regardless, beyond the scope of this CL.

       }
     }