From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 23 02:02:22 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FDA81065670 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 02:02:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from brde@optusnet.com.au) Received: from mail06.syd.optusnet.com.au (mail06.syd.optusnet.com.au [211.29.132.187]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C65658FC0A for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 02:02:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from brde@optusnet.com.au) Received: from c122-107-126-113.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au (c122-107-126-113.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [122.107.126.113]) by mail06.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n5N22EtC021897 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:02:18 +1000 Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:02:12 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans X-X-Sender: bde@delplex.bde.org To: Yuri In-Reply-To: <200906222016.n5MKGoDj028739@www.freebsd.org> Message-ID: <20090623115458.E32048@delplex.bde.org> References: <200906222016.n5MKGoDj028739@www.freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: misc/135932: 'strtol' doesn't reset errno to 0 when converting MAX_INT=2147483647 X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 02:02:22 -0000 On Mon, 22 Jun 2009, Yuri wrote: >> Description: > When strtol is supplied string 2147483647 it's impossible to distinguish between overflow and non-overflow situation since return value is the same one that flags overflow (MAX_INT) and strtol doesn't clear errno in this case. No, this is easy to distinguish: set errno to 0 (or just to some value different from ERANGE) before calling strtol(), and check errno after calling strtol(). The check can be omitted unless strtol() actually returns INT_MAX. The setting before the call can only be omitted it this error can't happen or if the caller doesn't check for it. Most uses of the strtol() family get this wrong by not even checking :-(. > strtol should set errno=0 in this case to avoid ambiguity. No, strtol() must not set errno to 0. The C standard doesn't permit any library function to set errno to 0. Bruce