Kalle Olavi Niemitalo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote Sat, Jan 26, 2008:
> So if the overflow check is necessary, it should be corrected.
> If overflows can be assumed to wrap (C does not guarantee that),
> then I think the following is correct and the simplest solution:
>
>
> for (; pos < length && isdigit(string[pos]); pos++) {
> off_t newint = integer * 10 + string[pos] - '0';
>
> if (newint / 10 != integer)
> return 0; /* overflow */
> integer = newint;
> }
>
> OTOH, if overflows instead trap or saturate, then this won't work.
I think the dectection is necessary and I like your correction.
--
Jonas Fonseca
_______________________________________________
elinks-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/elinks-dev
