[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170614172641.GG1627@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 13:26:41 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
Cc: Xiaowei Zhan <zhanxw@...il.com>, musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Different behavior (strtod) between musl and glibc
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 03:44:34PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Xiaowei Zhan <zhanxw@...il.com> writes:
>
> > I notice that when pass a non-numeric char to strtod, musl will set
> > errno to non-zero, but glibc will set errno to zero. I am curious why
> > this difference exists, and whether it is necessary to make strtod in
> > musl behave similarly to glibc.
>
> I think glibc leaves errno at zero; it does not set it. For input which
> cannot be converted, this seems to be the behavior mandated by C11.
> POSIX describes the EINVAL value as an extension to the C standard.
> glibc does not appear to implement this extension.
>
> So both behaviors are correct.
CX is a normative requirement for POSIX conformance; it indicates a
requirement beyond (but not conflicting with) the C requirements for
an interface defined by C. However, it's a "may fail", not a "shall
fail", so the error is optional, and thus you're right that both musl
and glibc are correct on the matter.
I think you're also correct that glibc leaves errno alone in this
case. Setting it to 0 would be non-conforming. The implementation is
never permitted to set errno to 0 except at initial program entry.
Rich
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.
