Hi Paul,
Good points on both.
> @@ -28,8 +29,8 @@ ftell (FILE *fp)
> {
> /* Use the replacement ftello function with all its workarounds. */
> off_t offset = ftello (fp);
> - if (offset == (long)offset)
> - return (long)offset;
> + if (LONG_MIN <= offset && offset <= LONG_MAX)
> + return offset;
Indeed, ISO C 99 6.3.1.3.(3) says
"Otherwise, the new type is signed and the value cannot be represented
in it; either the result is implementation-defined or an implementation-
defined signal is raised."
You call it a "wraparound" situation. But there is no arithmetic operation,
just a cast. Isn't there a better word to denote this situation?
I would leave the
return (long)offset;
statement as it is. The code does a conversion, and if the code is more
explicit about it, the better. Otherwise, when reading the code, I keep
wondering "what is this if statement good for?", and when searching for
casts, I have no chance to find it with 'grep'.
> + ftell: don't include <unistd.h>
> + * lib/ftell.c: Don't include <unistd.h>. <stdio.h> is now
> + guaranteed to define off_t, since the ftell module depends on the
> + stdio module.
Yes, right. I would change s/since/and/.
Bruno
--
In memoriam Ezechiele Ramin <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ezechiele_Ramin>
