From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Apr 12 21:11:56 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 990AF16A4CE
	for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>;
	Tue, 12 Apr 2005 21:11:56 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from cvs.openbsd.org (cvs.openbsd.org [199.185.137.3])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B24C43D49
	for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>;
	Tue, 12 Apr 2005 21:11:56 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from deraadt@cvs.openbsd.org)
Received: from cvs.openbsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by cvs.openbsd.org (8.13.3/8.12.1) with ESMTP id j3CLE7Ea013181;
	Tue, 12 Apr 2005 15:14:07 -0600 (MDT)
Message-Id: <200504122114.j3CLE7Ea013181@cvs.openbsd.org>
To: Thorsten Glaser <tg@66h.42h.de>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 12 Apr 2005 20:49:39 -0000."
             <Pine.BSO.4.61L.0504122049090.4031@odem.66h.42h.de> 
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 15:14:07 -0600
From: Theo de Raadt <deraadt@cvs.openbsd.org>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 15:55:49 +0000
cc: miros-discuss@mirbsd.org
cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
cc: tech@openbsd.org
Subject: Re: strtonum(3) in FreeBSD? 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 21:11:56 -0000

> >> >request that you use intmax_t rather than "long long" for the integers.
> >> >Then the API scales cleanly when some future processor adds 128-bit ints.
> >> >Since intmax_t is "long long" on all current platforms that wouldn't
> >> >cause compatability problems with OpenBSD.
> >> 
> >> I second that. Cc'd to OpenBSD-Tech. Comments?
> 
> >If you must deal with octal and hex numbers, do it yourself.  This is
> >not the typical case, and we specially avoid handling them to keep
> >this simple.
> 
> You already said that, but what about using intmax_t as return type?

No.