On 12.05.23 21:34, Eric Blake wrote:
On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 09:10:31PM -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
Rather than open-coding two different ways to check for an unwanted
negative sign, reuse the same code in both functions. That way, if we
decide down the road to accept "-0" instead of rejecting it,
On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 09:10:31PM -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
>
> Rather than open-coding two different ways to check for an unwanted
> negative sign, reuse the same code in both functions. That way, if we
> decide down the road to accept "-0" instead of rejecting it, we have
> fewer places to ch
Rather than open-coding two different ways to check for an unwanted
negative sign, reuse the same code in both functions. That way, if we
decide down the road to accept "-0" instead of rejecting it, we have
fewer places to change. Also, it means we now get ERANGE instead of
EINVAL for negative va
