On Wed, 7 May 2008 08:01:05 +0200 Jean Delvare <khali at linux-fr.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 6 May 2008 17:36:07 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > A checkpatch version which you might not have says
> >
> > WARNING: consider using strict_strtol in preference to simple_strtol
> > #1015: FILE: drivers/hwmon/ibmaem.c:918:
> > + int temp = simple_strtol(buf, NULL, 10); \
> >
> > total: 0 errors, 1 warnings, 1221 lines checked
> >
> > because the code as you have it will accept input of the form "12foo".
> > strict_strtol() will error on that.
>
> As a side note, I really wonder why this new function wasn't named just
> strtol(), especially if the general idea is to get rid of the "simple"
> variant after some time.
didn't think of doing that.
But:
y:/home/akpm> cat t.c
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
main()
{
unsigned long u = strtoul("12foo", 0, 10);
printf("%lu\n", u);
}
y:/home/akpm> gcc t.c
y:/home/akpm> ./a.out
12
strtoul() has different behaviour.
