From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Michael Fuhr <mike(at)fuhr(dot)org>, Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Strange interval arithmetic |
Date: | 2005-11-30 23:00:07 |
Message-ID: | 438E2EF7.7060000@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
>Michael Fuhr <mike(at)fuhr(dot)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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Fuhr | 2005-11-30 23:15:33 | Re: Strange interval arithmetic |
Previous Message | Michael Fuhr | 2005-11-30 22:57:42 | Re: Strange interval arithmetic |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Fuhr | 2005-11-30 23:15:33 | Re: Strange interval arithmetic |
Previous Message | Michael Fuhr | 2005-11-30 22:57:42 | Re: Strange interval arithmetic |