Joe Orton wrote: > > > An empty string, right: I think it's certainly correct to treat that as > invalid C-L header;
Bill just asked Roy about this very question. > indeed some strtol's themselves set errno for that > case. (the perl-framework C-L tests picked up this inconsistency a > while back) This is also noted in the comments when we fixed the invalid c-l logic (overflow/underflow) some time ago. > > There is no case where strtol will set len_end = NULL so the first half > of the conditional is redundant. (also len_end was not NULL-initialized > so if it was an attempt to catch cases where strtol does *not* set > len_end, it was not correct ;) > This was, iirc, to handle cases where a strtol could possibly set it to NULL; someone, can't recall who, seemed to remember one implementation which did that, so we just figured to-hell-with-it and add a safety check, just in case :) -- =========================================================================== Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "Sith happens" - Yoda
