Please do not reply to this email. Use the web interface provided at: http://bugs.ecos.sourceware.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1001490
--- Comment #5 from Sergei Gavrikov <[email protected]> 2012-08-08 17:58:35 BST --- (In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #3) > oops, sorry... Now I see, actually I applied the my own patch from > http://bugs.ecos.sourceware.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1001628 [snip] Thanks. Clear. > Well, there is more trouble with sprintf.... > > There is another bug #20804, about the %e format, that is also still > not fixed. > > When I tried to understand, why that happens, I found a buffer > overflow in the statement: printf("%.15f", DBL_MAX); > > There is a buffer in vfnprintf() which is 2 characters too small. There is another case. Today I investigated in bug #20804. The reason is 686 /* trailing f.p. zeroes */ 687 PAD(fpprec, zeroes); 688 ret += fpprec; It's okay for ("%.18f\n", 3.14e-11) 0.000000000031400000 But the padding/zeroing will be wrong for %e, %E, when requested prec > MAXPREC. Well, I ever made a fix :-) But, then I Googled and found this report http://www.cygwin.com/ml/ecos-discuss/2001-05/msg00065.html Well, it looks like my fix (Suzuki did talk about the same point which I found in GDB), but my workaround was if (prec > MAXFRACT) { if ((ch == 'f' && ch == 'F') || (flags&ALT)) { fpprec = prec - MAXFRACT; prec = MAXFRACT; } } else if (prec == -1) I was suprised how many projects use the same "printf" sources! But I've seen no fixes in this place there. I need more time to look around. > Maybe there should be a patch for all of the known issues. What do > you think? No matter. I think we have to rid all the issues. Thank you for your reports. Sergei -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.ecos.sourceware.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
