Joe Orton wrote:
>
>
> An empty string, right: I think it's certainly correct to treat that as
> invalid C-L header;
Bill just asked Roy about this very question.
> indeed some strtol's themselves set errno for that
> case. (the perl-framework C-L tests picked up this inconsistency a
> while back)
This is also noted in the comments when we fixed the invalid
c-l logic (overflow/underflow) some time ago.
>
> There is no case where strtol will set len_end = NULL so the first half
> of the conditional is redundant. (also len_end was not NULL-initialized
> so if it was an attempt to catch cases where strtol does *not* set
> len_end, it was not correct ;)
>
This was, iirc, to handle cases where a strtol could possibly set it
to NULL; someone, can't recall who, seemed to remember one implementation
which did that, so we just figured to-hell-with-it and add a safety
check, just in case :)
--
===========================================================================
Jim Jagielski [|] jim@jaguNET.com [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
"Sith happens" - Yoda
|