On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> On 20 December 2016 at 11:01, Chris Packham wrote:
>> Previously values greater than 255 were implicitly truncated. Add some
>> stricter checking to reject addresses with components >255.
>>
>> With the input "1234192.168.1.1" th
Hi Chris,
On 20 December 2016 at 11:01, Chris Packham wrote:
> Previously values greater than 255 were implicitly truncated. Add some
> stricter checking to reject addresses with components >255.
>
> With the input "1234192.168.1.1" the old behaviour would truncate the
> address to 192.168.1.1. N
Previously values greater than 255 were implicitly truncated. Add some
stricter checking to reject addresses with components >255.
With the input "1234192.168.1.1" the old behaviour would truncate the
address to 192.168.1.1. New behaviour rejects the string outright and
returns 0.0.0.0, which for
3 matches
Mail list logo