X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f
From: <ams AT ludd DOT ltu DOT se>
Message-Id: <200403091940.i29Je9Vl028408@speedy.ludd.ltu.se>
Subject: Re: Broken sscanf test case
In-Reply-To: <200403091926.i29JQX6i004590@envy.delorie.com> "from DJ Delorie
 at Mar 9, 2004 02:26:33 pm"
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 20:40:09 +0100 (CET)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL78 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

According to DJ Delorie:
> 
> Could you run the altered test case on Linux and see what it thinks?

This is a somewhat old box. Somebody else with a recent Linux system?

nietzsche:/tmp> ./sscanf3 
Test 3: FAIL: ("1", "%*[0123456789]%*c");
        expected 0;
        expected c1 '';
        expected c2 '';
        got -1;
        c == ''
        c2 == ''
Test 13: FAIL: ("1", "%*[0123456789]%c");
        expected 0;
        expected c1 '';
        expected c2 '';
        got -1;
        c == ''
        c2 == ''
FAIL

> I think we'll be safer doing what Linux does, than doing what we think
> the standard requires.

I disagree. We should adhere to the standard.

The difference between me and Linux boils down to whether you consider
a suppressed assignment a conversion or not (I think). And obviously
I'm correct, as you can't suppress an assignment unless you have a
(successful) conversion.


Right,

						MartinS