Hi Richard,
On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 07:03:22PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 06:32:18PM +0200, Nick Wellnhofer wrote:
> > On Oct 17, 2020, at 12:24 , Richard W.M. Jones via xml
> > wrote:
> > > It seems like libxml2 chose to do this for convenience rather than
> > >
On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 06:32:18PM +0200, Nick Wellnhofer wrote:
> On Oct 17, 2020, at 12:24 , Richard W.M. Jones via xml wrote:
> > It seems like libxml2 chose to do this for convenience rather than
> > correctness.
>
> Yes, this is an arbitrary limit introduced to avoid integer overflow.
>
>
On Oct 17, 2020, at 12:24 , Richard W.M. Jones via xml wrote:
> It seems like libxml2 chose to do this for convenience rather than
> correctness.
Yes, this is an arbitrary limit introduced to avoid integer overflow.
> I think it should accept port numbers at least up to
> signed int (the type
