This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: atoi vs strtol in rtl.c:read_rtx()

To: rth at redhat dot com
Subject: Re: atoi vs strtol in rtl.c:read_rtx()
From: DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 19:13:07 -0400
CC: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
References: <200105242034.QAA28344@greed.delorie.com> <20010524152502.C7222@redhat.com> <200105242255.SAA29114@greed.delorie.com> <20010524160932.A7398@redhat.com>


> Yes.  You can autoconf check for that, as it exists in glibc.
> We provide a fallback version of atoq already; that can be
> replaced.

What's the point of adding complexity just to sometimes not use a
function we already have?  Is there harm in always using the function
we have?

References:
- atoi vs strtol in rtl.c:read_rtx()
  - From: DJ Delorie
- Re: atoi vs strtol in rtl.c:read_rtx()
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: atoi vs strtol in rtl.c:read_rtx()
  - From: DJ Delorie
- Re: atoi vs strtol in rtl.c:read_rtx()
  - From: Richard Henderson

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]