[blackdragoon26]

What does this PR do?

Fixes numeric option parsing in cachesim. Malformed values such as --hashpower=8junk and --sample-ratio=nan now produce an error instead of silently changing simulation settings.

Request limits are parsed as 64-bit integers, so --num-req=4294967306 no longer becomes 10. Existing supported values, including --num-req=-1, are preserved.

Related to #206.

Type of change

• Bug fix
• New eviction / admission / prefetch algorithm
• New trace reader or trace format
• Performance improvement
• Documentation
• Build / CI
• Other:

How was it tested?

Tested on macOS with a Debug build and Ubuntu x86_64 with a Release build and LeakSanitizer. All 10 CTest targets pass. The latest macOS run includes 262 CLI checks, all passing.

Formatting, shell syntax and whitespace checks pass. The existing macOS warning in libCacheSim/bin/debug/main.cpp remains.

• ctest --test-dir _build --output-on-failure passes, tested using _build_dbg
• Build is warning-free (CI uses -Wall -Wextra -Werror)

Results

Invalid numeric arguments are rejected with a clear error. Large request limits retain their full value, and valid inputs continue to work.

Checklist

• Formatted with clang-format (or the pre-commit hook from scripts/setup_hooks.sh)
• Added or updated tests
• Added or updated documentation
• New algorithms are registered in the CLI and listed in the README

[Copilot]

Copilot was unable to review this pull request because the user who requested the review has reached their quota limit.

[Copilot]

Copilot was unable to review this pull request because the user who requested the review has reached their quota limit.

[haochengxia]

Thanks! LGTM, and should we reject extreme small sample ratio?
Consider one case:

s->sampling_ratio = sampling_ratio;
s->sampling_ratio_inv = (int)(1.0 / sampling_ratio); -> would overflow with 1e-999

[blackdragoon26]

Thanks! LGTM, and should we reject extreme small sample ratio?
Consider one case:

s->sampling_ratio = sampling_ratio;
s->sampling_ratio_inv = (int)(1.0 / sampling_ratio); -> would overflow with 1e-999

Thank you for catching this! Added the lower-bound check and boundary tests in ecbcfcf.