On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 7:40 AM, Peter Gibbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christoph Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <perl6-internals@perl.org> > Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 10:29 AM > Subject: Re: [perl #57260] [BUG] Segfaults in sprintf opcode > > >> Will Coleda (via RT) wrote: >>> >>> # New Ticket Created by Will Coleda # Please include the string: [perl >>> #57260] >>> # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. # >>> <URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=57260 > >>> >>> >>> Tripped over these trying to run some spec tests for Tcl. I have no >>> idea what $S0 should have after the invocation, but the current >>> segfaults are undoubtedly incorrect. >> >> > >> >> If someone wants to fix this, the following works as a minimal test case. >> >> .sub kaboom >> $P0 = new 'ResizableIntegerArray' >> push $P0, -1 >> push $P0, 1 >> $S0 = sprintf "%*c", $P0 >> .end > > According to 'man sprintf', a negative field length is equivalent to a minus > option and the absolute length. The following patch has been applied in > revision 29735. > Appropriate tests to be added later. > > Regards > Peter Gibbs > > Index: src/spf_render.c > =================================================================== > --- src/spf_render.c (revision 29734) > +++ src/spf_render.c (working copy) > @@ -310,6 +310,7 @@ > INTVAL len = 0; > INTVAL old = 0; > INTVAL pat_len = (INTVAL)string_length(interp, pat); > + HUGEINTVAL num; > > /* start with a buffer; double the pattern length to avoid realloc #1 */ > STRING *targ = string_make_empty(interp, enum_stringrep_one, pat_len << > 1); > @@ -492,8 +493,14 @@ > > case '*': > info.flags |= FLAG_WIDTH; > - info.width = (UINTVAL)obj->getint(interp, > - SIZE_XVAL, obj); > + num = obj->getint(interp, SIZE_XVAL, obj); > + if (num < 0) { > + info.flags |= FLAG_MINUS; > + info.width = -num; > + } > + else { > + info.width = num; > + } > /* fall through */ > > case '.': > >
Not only that does that avoid the segfault, the tcl spec test equivalent to the first test passes. Woot. The second is still failing, but probably due to unicode issues - but it's now just failing, not segfaulting. Once we get a core parrot test for this, we can close out the ticket. Thanks! -- Will "Coke" Coleda
