summaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/generic/tclStrToD.c
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'generic/tclStrToD.c')
-rw-r--r--generic/tclStrToD.c33
1 files changed, 20 insertions, 13 deletions
diff --git a/generic/tclStrToD.c b/generic/tclStrToD.c
index 6da6df3..57c24ac 100644
--- a/generic/tclStrToD.c
+++ b/generic/tclStrToD.c
@@ -18,13 +18,6 @@
#include <math.h>
/*
- * Define KILL_OCTAL to suppress interpretation of numbers with leading zero
- * as octal. (Ceterum censeo: numeros octonarios delendos esse.)
- */
-
-#undef KILL_OCTAL
-
-/*
* This code supports (at least hypothetically), IBM, Cray, VAX and IEEE-754
* floating point; of these, only IEEE-754 can represent NaN. IEEE-754 can be
* uniquely determined by radix and by the widths of significand and exponent.
@@ -546,6 +539,20 @@ TclParseNumber(
*/
if (bytes == NULL) {
+ if (interp == NULL && endPtrPtr == NULL) {
+ if (objPtr->typePtr == &tclDictType) {
+ /* A dict can never be a (single) number */
+ return TCL_ERROR;
+ }
+ if (objPtr->typePtr == &tclListType) {
+ int length;
+ /* A list can only be a (single) number if its length == 1 */
+ TclListObjLength(NULL, objPtr, &length);
+ if (length != 1) {
+ return TCL_ERROR;
+ }
+ }
+ }
bytes = TclGetString(objPtr);
}
@@ -657,7 +664,7 @@ TclParseNumber(
state = ZERO_O;
break;
}
-#ifdef KILL_OCTAL
+#ifdef TCL_NO_DEPRECATED
goto decimal;
#endif
/* FALLTHROUGH */
@@ -740,7 +747,7 @@ TclParseNumber(
goto endgame;
}
-#ifndef KILL_OCTAL
+#ifndef TCL_NO_DEPRECATED
/*
* Scanned a number with a leading zero that contains an 8, 9,
@@ -879,7 +886,7 @@ TclParseNumber(
* digits.
*/
-#ifdef KILL_OCTAL
+#ifdef TCL_NO_DEPRECATED
decimal:
#endif
acceptState = state;
@@ -1183,9 +1190,9 @@ TclParseNumber(
case sNA:
case sNANPAREN:
case sNANHEX:
+#endif
Tcl_Panic("TclParseNumber: bad acceptState %d parsing '%s'",
acceptState, bytes);
-#endif
case BINARY:
shift = numTrailZeros;
if (!significandOverflow && significandWide != 0 &&
@@ -3798,7 +3805,7 @@ ShorteningBignumConversion(
--s5;
/*
- * IDEA: It might possibly be a win to fall back to int64
+ * IDEA: It might possibly be a win to fall back to int64_t
* arithmetic here if S < 2**64/10. But it's a win only for
* a fairly narrow range of magnitudes so perhaps not worth
* bothering. We already know that we shorten the
@@ -3963,7 +3970,7 @@ StrictBignumConversion(
* As with the shortening bignum conversion, it's possible at this
* point that we will have reduced the denominator to less than
* 2**64/10, at which point it would be possible to fall back to
- * to int64 arithmetic. But the potential payoff is tremendously
+ * to int64_t arithmetic. But the potential payoff is tremendously
* less - unless we're working in F format - because we know that
* three groups of digits will always suffice for %#.17e, the
* longest format that doesn't introduce empty precision.