Another Possible Solution is to remove support for octal in atolx,
the use of zero padded numbers is probably a lot less common than
any modern use of octal.
Patch 2.0 is attached, Nothing breaks in the test suite
- Oliver Webb <aquahobby...@proton.me>
From 49e73c9d8d19bb590f79c92065dbb133cad50565 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Oliver Webb <aquahobby...@proton.me>
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2024 15:20:59 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] Stop Confusing Zero Padded Numbers With Octal. Zero Padded
numbers are more common than any modern use of octal.
---
lib/lib.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/lib/lib.c b/lib/lib.c
index 6a4a77dd..fd5c3ac7 100644
--- a/lib/lib.c
+++ b/lib/lib.c
@@ -312,7 +312,8 @@ long long atolx(char *numstr)
char *c = numstr, *suffixes="cwbkmgtpe", *end;
long long val;
- val = xstrtol(numstr, &c, 0);
+ // Zero padded numbers are more common than any modern use of octal
+ val = xstrtol(numstr, &c, (*numstr == '0' && numstr[1] != 'x') ? 10 : 0);
if (c != numstr && *c && (end = strchr(suffixes, tolower(*c)))) {
int shift = end-suffixes-2;
++c;
--
2.44.0
_______________________________________________
Toybox mailing list
Toybox@lists.landley.net
http://lists.landley.net/listinfo.cgi/toybox-landley.net
