Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > So am I allowed to assume 8-bit chars, or should I add code that checks > for char overflow, one hex digit at a time? And with 8-bit chars, should > "\x100" parse as "\x10" "0", or should it raise a parse error?
Nevermind.... I see now that printf.c bypasses all this gorp and says only that \x takes 1 or 2 hex digits. Let's just do that. The C rule is weird. > Also, should I try to attempt fixes where ls assumes ASCII? I wouldn't bother, unless you have an EBCDIC host to test your results on. I suppose it wouldn't hurt to add a comment that the current code assumes something like ASCII. > - state = ST_OCTAL; /* Octal sequence */ > + state = ST_OCTAL2; /* Octal sequence, max 2 chars */ This doesn't look right; surely "\400" should be an error, not '\40' followed by '0'. _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
