On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 06:06:09PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 03:42:19PM +0200, Marc Espie wrote: > > 7.20.1.4 (3) If the value of base is zero, the expected form of the subject > > sequence is that of an integer constant *as described in 6.4.4.1*, > > optionally > > preceded by a plus or minus sign but not including an integer suffix [...] > > > > 6.4.4.1 is a grammar > > > > > > integer-constant: > > [...] > > hexadecimal-constant integer-suffix_opt > > You have skipped with [...] the part that actually matches "0". So yes, > the ISO C grammar does require strtol and friends to handle "0xx" and > similar as just "0".
Yep, since the goal was just to show that 0x was not a valid number in ISO C. Duh!
