The credit/debit card number is referred to as a PAN, or Primary Account Number. The first six digits of the PAN are taken from the IIN, or Issuer Identification Number, belonging to the issuing bank (IINs were previously known as BIN — Bank Identification Numbers — so you may see references to that terminology in some documents). These six digits are subject to an international standard, ISO/IEC 7812, and can be used to determine the type of card from the number.
Unfortunately the actual ISO/IEC 7812 database is not publicly available, however, there are unofficial lists, both commercial and free, including on Wikipedia.
Anyway, to detect the type from the number, you can use a regular expression like the ones below: Credit for original expressions
Visa: ^4[0-9]{6,}$ Visa card numbers start with a 4.
MasterCard: ^5[1-5][0-9]{5,}|222[1-9][0-9]{3,}|22[3-9][0-9]{4,}|2[3-6][0-9]{5,}|27[01][0-9]{4,}|2720[0-9]{3,}$ Before 2016, MasterCard numbers start with the numbers 51 through 55, but this will only detect MasterCard credit cards; there are other cards issued using the MasterCard system that do not fall into this IIN range. In 2016, they will add numbers in the range (222100-272099).
American Express: ^3[47][0-9]{5,}$ American Express card numbers start with 34 or 37.
Diners Club: ^3(?:0[0-5]|[68][0-9])[0-9]{4,}$ Diners Club card numbers begin with 300 through 305, 36 or 38. There are Diners Club cards that begin with 5 and have 16 digits. These are a joint venture between Diners Club and MasterCard and should be processed like a MasterCard.
Discover: ^6(?:011|5[0-9]{2})[0-9]{3,}$ Discover card numbers begin with 6011 or 65.
JCB: ^(?:2131|1800|35[0-9]{3})[0-9]{3,}$ JCB cards begin with 2131, 1800 or 35.
Unfortunately, there are a number of card types processed with the MasterCard system that do not live in MasterCard’s IIN range (numbers starting 51...55); the most important case is that of Maestro cards, many of which have been issued from other banks’ IIN ranges and so are located all over the number space. As a result, it may be best to assume that any card that is not of some other type you accept must be a MasterCard.
Important: card numbers do vary in length; for instance, Visa has in the past issued cards with 13 digit PANs and cards with 16 digit PANs. Visa’s documentation currently indicates that it may issue or may have issued numbers with between 12 and 19 digits. Therefore, you should not check the length of the card number, other than to verify that it has at least 7 digits (for a complete IIN plus one check digit, which should match the value predicted by the Luhn algorithm).
One further hint: before processing a cardholder PAN, strip any whitespace and punctuation characters from the input. Why? Because it’s typically much easier to enter the digits in groups, similar to how they’re displayed on the front of an actual credit card, i.e.
4444 4444 4444 4444
is much easier to enter correctly than
4444444444444444
There’s really no benefit in chastising the user because they’ve entered characters you don't expect here.
This also implies making sure that your entry fields have room for at least 24 characters, otherwise users who enter spaces will run out of room. I’d recommend that you make the field wide enough to display 32 characters and allow up to 64; that gives plenty of headroom for expansion.
Here's an image that gives a little more insight:
UPDATE (2016): Mastercard is to implement new BIN ranges starting Ach Payment.
With ps or similar tools you will only get the amount of memory pages allocated by that process. This number is correct, but:
does not reflect the actual amount of memory used by the application, only the amount of memory reserved for it
can be misleading if pages are shared, for example by several threads or by using dynamically linked libraries
If you really want to know what amount of memory your application actually uses, you need to run it within a profiler. For example, Valgrind can give you insights about the amount of memory used, and, more importantly, about possible memory leaks in your program. The heap profiler tool of Valgrind is called 'massif':
Massif is a heap profiler. It performs detailed heap profiling by taking regular snapshots of a program's heap. It produces a graph showing heap usage over time, including information about which parts of the program are responsible for the most memory allocations. The graph is supplemented by a text or HTML file that includes more information for determining where the most memory is being allocated. Massif runs programs about 20x slower than normal.
As explained in the Valgrind documentation, you need to run the program through Valgrind:
valgrind --tool=massif <executable> <arguments>
Massif writes a dump of memory usage snapshots (e.g. massif.out.12345). These provide, (1) a timeline of memory usage, (2) for each snapshot, a record of where in your program memory was allocated. A great graphical tool for analyzing these files is massif-visualizer. But I found ms_print, a simple text-based tool shipped with Valgrind, to be of great help already.
To find memory leaks, use the (default) memcheck tool of valgrind.
Best Answer
Use priority levels that deliberately have nothing to do with severity or impact, and describe only the conceptual position of the bug in the schedule. This field will determine which bugs get worked on, so it will be a target for negotiation.
Use severity levels that deliberately have concrete, verifiable definitions not open to negotiation, that have nothing to do with scheduling or priority. I've worked successfully with the severity definitions used by the Debian BTS, generalised to apply to programming projects in general.
That way, the severity is much more a matter of verifiable fact, independent of a statement of priority. The priority is then free to be tweaked up and down by negotiation or whatever, without affecting the factual information in the severity field.
Attempting to conflate both “severity” and “priority” into a single field will lead to soul-draining arguments and wasted time. The bug reporter needs a firm guide of fact to determine how “bad” the bug is, and this needs to be easily agreed on by independent parties. The priority, on the other hand, is the correct target for negotiation and scheduling games.