Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> I just noticed, while reviewing a patch that corrects overflow handing
> in snprintf, that we don't correctly handle INT64_MIN in snprintf.c:
Well, you still get the right answer, even if the "-value" is
nominally undefined.
> I suspect the best way to fix this, would be to instead do:
> /* Handle +/- */
> if (dosign && adjust_sign((value < 0), forcesign, &signvalue);
> uvalue = -(uint64) value;
> else
> uvalue = (uint64) value;
Hm, what does -x mean for an unsigned value? I'm not really
convinced this is conceptually better.
regards, tom lane
