Hi Tom, >My thought here is to back-patch the strtoint() change. >I cannot envision any case that that would make worse. >And failing to do so leaves a land-mine for potential >future back-patches of code using strtoint().
Thanks -- back-patching the strtoint() change removes my only reason for preferring strtoi64() in patch [1]. Once it has landed, I will switch that patch back to strtoint(); that was the shape of my original v1, minus the errno workaround that the saturating return value makes unnecessary. Regards, Prashant Chinnam
