OK, comments removed, and comment added to port/strtol.c.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > I modified it to:
> > errno = 0; /* avoid having to check the result for failure */
>
> Just for the record, that's *still* wrong. It implies that if we
> tested (result == LONG_MAX && errno == ERANGE), without zeroing
> errno beforehand, the code would be correct. But it would not,
> because the errno value could still be leftover. The plain fact
> of the matter is that if you're going to check for strtol overflow at
> all, you have to zero errno beforehand. This is perfectly well
> explained in the strtol spec page, and I see no need to duplicate it:
>
> Because 0, LONG_MIN and LONG_MAX are returned on error and are
> also valid returns on success, an application wishing to check
> for error situations should set errno to 0, then call strtol(),
> then check errno.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
