From: Jim Meyering <jim@meyering.net>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 13:31:28 GMT
Subject: Re: avoid atoi, when possible; int overflow -> heap corruption
Message-ID: <878xoufaof.fsf@rho.meyering.net>
In-Reply-To: <118833cc0605220616t75a182b1oa404d5efe8a1f5d9@mail.gmail.com>

"Morten Welinder" <mwelinder@gmail.com> wrote:
>> There are about 20 uses of atoi, and most calls can return
>> a usable result in spite of an invalid input -- just because
>> atoi returns the same thing for "99" as "99-and-any-suffix".
>> It would be better not to ignore invalid inputs.
>
> atoi has undefined behaviour for "99-and-any-suffix".  You might
> get lucky and get back 99, but you might also get a random value
> or a core dump.

I've never heard of that.
POSIX says that atoi(str) is equivalent to:

    (int) strtol(str, (char **)NULL, 10)
    except that the handling of errors may differ.
    If the value cannot be represented, the behavior is undefined.

Since strtol works fine with such a suffix, and since 99 can be
represented, I don't see why there would be any undefined behavior.

Do you know of an implementation for which `atoi ("99-and-any-suffix")'
does anything other than return 99?