This is the mail archive of the
libc-help@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: strtoul(-1) discussion
- From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at systemhalted dot org>
- To: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>
- Cc: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>, Fabrice Bauzac <libnoon at gmail dot com>, libc-help at sourceware dot org, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 09:58:43 -0400
- Subject: Re: strtoul(-1) discussion
- References: <CAB6Q1a-m=W4cA3WCeuB1FzFWHbistLrN3wR1hfo4mfPB9j9qJw at mail dot gmail dot com> <51619DB2 dot 10406 at redhat dot com> <516BB029 dot 1070001 at redhat dot com>
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 3:45 AM, Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 04/07/2013 06:24 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>>
>> I would be more than happy to review a patch to enhance the manual
>> to discuss the porting issue and that glibc's strtoul doesn't conform
>> with the standards.
>
>
> Is this really true? I was under the impression that for historic reasons,
> the standards require that both strtoul and the %u conversion specifier
> accept negative values.
>
> What do other systems do?
Could you please read Fabrice's original post and comment on that?
It's far more detailed than my single line summary and we can discuss
that point by point. Fabrice does give some examples of what other
systems do, but if you'd like more please ask Fabrice to reach out and
get more examples.
Cheers,
Carlos.