[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2022 11:06:14 +0100
From: Quentin Rameau <quinq@...th.space>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Bug in atoll strtoll, the output of then differ
> Hello !
Hi,
> Doing some work with emscripten with this project
> https://github.com/mingodad/CG-SQL-Lua-playground I was getting some
> errors with the usage of "atoll" and with this small program to compare
> the output of "musl" and "glibc" I found what seems to be a bug in
> "atoll" because with "musl" it gives a different output than "strtoll".
>
> =====
>
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <stdlib.h>
>
> int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> {
> const char *s = "9223372036854775808";
> long long ll = atoll(s);
> long long ll2 = strtoll (s, (char **) NULL, 10);
> int imax = 0x7fffffff;
> printf("%s : %lld : %lld : %d : %d\n", s, ll, ll2, imax, ll <= imax);
> return 0;
> }
This is not a bug in musl, but a bug in the code,
9223372036854775808 is outside the range of long long,
so the behavior is undefined.
As recommended by the standard, ato* should only be used if the input
is known to always be in the target range,
otherwise use the strto* functins and do proper error handling.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
