On 04/02/2021 16:35, Petr Mladek wrote:
On Wed 2021-02-03 21:45:55, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Wed, Feb 03, 2021 at 04:50:07PM +0000, Richard Fitzgerald wrote:
The existing code attempted to handle numbers by doing a strto[u]l(),
ignoring the field width, and then repeatedly dividing to extract the
field out of the full converted value. If the string contains a run of
valid digits longer than will fit in a long or long long, this would
overflow and no amount of dividing can recover the correct value.
...
+ for (; max_chars > 0; max_chars--) {
Less fragile is to write
while (max_chars--)
Except that the original was more obvious at least for me.
I always prefer more readable code when the compiler might do
the optimization easily. But this is my personal taste.
I am fine with both variants.
This allows max_char to be an unsigned type.
Moreover...
+ return _parse_integer_limit(s, base, p, INT_MAX);
You have inconsistency with INT_MAX vs, size_t above.
Ah, this was on my request. INT_MAX is already used on many other
locations in vsnprintf() for this purpose.
Strictly speaking this should be SIZE_MAX because the argument is a
size_t.
