Re: [PATCH] Fix newly exposed bug [was RE: RFC: Fix partial NaN-parsing problem [was RE: sscanf problem]]

2005-04-29 Thread Eric Blake
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 According to Dave Korn on 4/28/2005 12:41 PM: > 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

RE: [PATCH] Fix newly exposed bug [was RE: RFC: Fix partial NaN-parsing problem [was RE: sscanf problem]]

2005-04-28 Thread Gary R. Van Sickle
> 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 fi

RE: [PATCH] Fix newly exposed bug [was RE: RFC: Fix partial NaN-parsing problem [was RE: sscanf problem]]

2005-04-28 Thread Dave Korn
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_toget

Re: [PATCH] Fix newly exposed bug [was RE: RFC: Fix partial NaN-parsing problem [was RE: sscanf problem]]

2005-04-28 Thread Jeff Johnston
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 verifie

[PATCH] Fix newly exposed bug [was RE: RFC: Fix partial NaN-parsing problem [was RE: sscanf problem]]

2005-04-28 Thread Dave Korn
Original Message >From: Jean-Christophe Kablitz >Sent: 27 April 2005 00:22 > Hello, > > I have noticed, that, while parsing {a float_value immediately followed by > 'n' or 'N'} with the "%f%c" format, the sscanf function of cygwin-1.5.16-1 > behaves differently from the scanf function of