Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com From: "Dave Korn" To: "'Jeff Johnston'" Cc: "'Jean-Christophe Kablitz'" , , Subject: RE: [PATCH] Fix newly exposed bug [was RE: RFC: Fix partial NaN-parsing problem [was RE: sscanf problem]] Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 19:41:04 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <42712C5D.4060409@redhat.com> Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Apr 2005 18:40:58.0970 (UTC) FILETIME=[D1EF9BA0:01C54C21] ----Original Message---- >From: Jeff Johnston >Sent: 28 April 2005 19:33 > Hi Dave, > > Thanks for looking into this. Your patch wasn't quite correct. It > ended up breaking nan-support which isn't tested in the accompanying > testcase. It needed to verify that x & multiple_flags_ored_together == > multiple_flags_ored_together. Anyway, I have checked a patch in and > verified that it works for your tests below plus it also works for a > simple test like > i = sscanf ("nank", "%lf%c%n", &x, &m, &n) > > -- Jeff J. Heh, actually we probably have to talk about that. The k should IIUIC be swallowed by the %lf and the %c should fail; this is the production described as NAN(n-char-sequence opt) in the C language spec, strtod documentation (that's 7.20.1.3.3 in WG14/N843 draft, I don't have the final version). And we haven't even mentioned the lack of INF support yet :) However I'm on UK time, so it won't be happening today! cheers, DaveK -- Can't think of a witty .sigline today.... -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/