On Thu, 27 Oct 2005, Mark Andrews wrote:
On 2005-10-26, Mark Andrews wrote:
Leading zeros are ambigious. Some platforms treat them as octal
others treat them as decimal.
There is nothing ambiguous about the example provided. (Perhaps
it wasn't a good example, but it's
man inet_addr
and you'll find:
All numbers supplied as ``parts'' in a `.' notation may be decimal,
octal, or hexadecimal, as specified in the C language (i.e., a leading
0x or 0X implies hexadecimal; otherwise, a leading 0 implies octal;
otherwise, the number is interpreted as decimal).
So a
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005, Paul T. Root wrote:
man inet_addr
and you'll find:
All numbers supplied as ``parts'' in a `.' notation may be decimal,
octal, or hexadecimal, as specified in the C language (i.e., a leading
0x or 0X implies hexadecimal; otherwise, a leading 0 implies octal;
Jan Grant wrote:
***
This message has been scanned by the InterScan for CSC-SSM and found to be free
of known security risks.
***-***
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005, Paul T. Root wrote:
man inet_addr
and you'll find:
All numbers supplied as ``parts'' in a `.'
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005, Paul T. Root wrote:
Jan Grant wrote:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005, Paul T. Root wrote:
man inet_addr
and you'll find:
All numbers supplied as ``parts'' in a `.' notation may be decimal,
octal, or hexadecimal, as specified in the C language (i.e., a
I don't know whether this is worth filing a PR for, but it seems the
resolver no longer likes leading zeroes in an IP4 address in /etc/hosts.
The change (in 5- ) appeared sometime in the last month or two.
Personally I'm inclined to view this as a regression although it's
simple enough to work
I don't know whether this is worth filing a PR for, but it seems the
resolver no longer likes leading zeroes in an IP4 address in /etc/hosts.
The change (in 5- ) appeared sometime in the last month or two.
Personally I'm inclined to view this as a regression although it's
simple enough
On 2005-10-26, Mark Andrews wrote:
Leading zeros are ambigious. Some platforms treat them as octal
others treat them as decimal.
There is nothing ambiguous about the example provided. (Perhaps
it wasn't a good example, but it's always a bug if '04' is not
correctly decoded,
On 2005-10-26, Mark Andrews wrote:
Leading zeros are ambigious. Some platforms treat them as octal
others treat them as decimal.
There is nothing ambiguous about the example provided. (Perhaps
it wasn't a good example, but it's always a bug if '04' is not
correctly decoded, regardless
On 2005-10-26, Matt Emmerton wrote:
On 2005-10-26, Mark Andrews wrote:
Leading zeros are ambigious. Some platforms treat them as octal
others treat them as decimal.
There is nothing ambiguous about the example provided. (Perhaps
it wasn't a good example, but it's always a bug if
On 2005-10-26, Mark Andrews wrote:
Leading zeros are ambigious. Some platforms treat them as octal
others treat them as decimal.
There is nothing ambiguous about the example provided. (Perhaps
it wasn't a good example, but it's always a bug if '04' is not
correctly decoded,
11 matches
Mail list logo
