Tom Lane wrote:
>Michael Fuhr <mike@fuhr.org> writes:
>
>
>>I suppose if we check for LONG_MAX then we should also check
>>for LONG_MIN.
>>
>>
>
>s/should/must/, which makes the code even more complicated, in order to
>buy what exactly?
>
>
>
>>I don't know if any systems might set ERANGE in a non-error situation.
>>
>>
>
>The SUS saith
>http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/xsh/strtol.html
>
> The strtol() function will not change the setting of errno if
> successful.
>
>Perhaps more to the point, we've been doing it that way (errno test
>only) for many years without complaints. Adding a test on the return
>value is venturing into less charted waters.
>
>
>
>
LONG_MIN/LONG_MAX might be the actual values provided, too, mightn't
they? checking for ERANGE seems like the only viable test.
cheers
andrew
