Hi Hans, On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 18:59:25 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > Jean Delvare wrote: > > Use strtoul() instead of parsing integers on our own. > > Erm, why all the < 0 checks on the return value of strtoul, are the variable in > which the return value gets stored signed and can we have a wrap? Yes, this is the reason why I added these "< 0" checks. > In that case wouldn't it be better to first store in an unsigned long and then > explicitly check the limits we want to enforce? There's no specific limit I want to enforce, I only want to make sure that we don't end up with a negative value due to a possible wrap. This is pure paranoia, BTW, no sane user would ever trigger it. I agree that letting the overflow happen and checking for it afterwards isn't very elegant, but it works and it is efficient, so I am a bit reluctant to make the code more complex than it needs be. I could probably use strtol instead of strtoul if you prefer, though. -- Jean Delvare
