From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hans de Goede Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 08:42:52 +0000 Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH 4/6] libsensors4: Use strtoul Message-Id: <46C40E0C.8060901@hhs.nl> List-Id: References: <20070815174240.34ddf040@hyperion> In-Reply-To: <20070815174240.34ddf040@hyperion> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: lm-sensors@vger.kernel.org Jean Delvare wrote: > 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. > No its fine as is then. Regards, Hans _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors