Re-enable all the windows warnings except 4267

core/fxcrt/fx_basic_gcc_unittest.cpp

Index: core/fxcrt/fx_basic_gcc_unittest.cpp
diff --git a/core/fxcrt/fx_basic_gcc_unittest.cpp b/core/fxcrt/fx_basic_gcc_unittest.cpp
index c6913cfd8205075d66fe51a82fd53dd69e94871c..9c7b61f0a1bfcc19229d4b5d34c10cd965664578 100644
--- a/core/fxcrt/fx_basic_gcc_unittest.cpp
+++ b/core/fxcrt/fx_basic_gcc_unittest.cpp
@@ -17,14 +17,14 @@ TEST(fxcrt, FXSYS_atoi) {
   // The max value.
   EXPECT_EQ(2147483647, FXSYS_atoi("2147483647"));
   // The min value.
-  EXPECT_EQ(-2147483648, FXSYS_atoi("-2147483648"));
+  EXPECT_EQ(-2147483647 - 1, FXSYS_atoi("-2147483648"));

[Tom Sepez, 2016/03/30 23:28:29]

Not sure what's going on here.  Can you explain why we need to write it this
way?  Thanks.

[Wei Li, 2016/03/31 01:39:09]

Since 2147483648 can not fit into int, it will be treated as an unsigned int.
Using minus before unsigned int raises the warning here. 

It is always a good idea to use INT_MIN whenever possible. But I think it is
better to see the test results visually here than using INT_MIN. WDYT?  

   // With invalid char.
   EXPECT_EQ(9, FXSYS_atoi("9x9"));
 
   // Out of range values.
   EXPECT_EQ(2147483647, FXSYS_atoi("2147483623423412348"));
   EXPECT_EQ(2147483647, FXSYS_atoi("2147483648"));
-  EXPECT_EQ(-2147483648, FXSYS_atoi("-2147483650"));
+  EXPECT_EQ(-2147483647 - 1, FXSYS_atoi("-2147483650"));
 }
 
 TEST(fxcrt, FXSYS_atoi64) {
@@ -58,13 +58,13 @@ TEST(fxcrt, FXSYS_wtoi) {
   // The max value.
   EXPECT_EQ(2147483647, FXSYS_wtoi(L"2147483647"));
   // The min value.
-  EXPECT_EQ(-2147483648, FXSYS_wtoi(L"-2147483648"));
+  EXPECT_EQ(-2147483647 - 1, FXSYS_wtoi(L"-2147483648"));
   EXPECT_EQ(9, FXSYS_wtoi64(L"9x9"));
 
   // Out of range values.
   EXPECT_EQ(2147483647, FXSYS_wtoi(L"2147483623423412348"));
   EXPECT_EQ(2147483647, FXSYS_wtoi(L"2147483648"));
-  EXPECT_EQ(-2147483648, FXSYS_wtoi(L"-2147483652"));
+  EXPECT_EQ(-2147483647 - 1, FXSYS_wtoi(L"-2147483652"));
 }
 
 TEST(fxcrt, FXSYS_wtoi64) {