Prashant Chinnam <[email protected]> writes:
> 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.
Pushed. I made the code look like this:
val = strtol(str, endptr, base);
if (val != (int) val)
+ {
+ val = (val < 0) ? INT_MIN : INT_MAX;
errno = ERANGE;
+ }
return (int) val;
I was concerned that Chao's original formulation could provoke
compiler warnings on machines with 32-bit long: it would not
be surprising to get "condition is always false" warnings
from "val > INT_MAX" etc. (In principle the existing test
could provoke such warnings too, but it doesn't. I very
vaguely recall that we settled on the cast-and-compare
method specifically to avoid warnings, way back when.)
regards, tom lane
