Bug in _scanf.c

2013-03-18 Thread Pirmin Walthert
Hello It seems like commit e567c399ff86d007d8c4586f0dd5e0ca61e283ca had introduced a bug into _scanf.c. I noticed this first when netstat started giving me quite strange outputs. The attached patch fi

Re: Bug in _scanf.c

2013-03-18 Thread Pirmin Walthert
(For sure just resetting i after the "while (*fmt !=']')" loop would be enough, but this would somehow ruin the "set the vars once, use them in every of the three functions" approach of commit e567c399ff86d007d8c4586f0dd5e0ca61e283ca) On 03/18/2013 09:55 AM, Pirmin Walthert wrote: Hello It s

Re: Bug in _scanf.c

2013-03-18 Thread Markos Chandras
On 18 March 2013 08:55, Pirmin Walthert wrote: > Hello > > It seems like commit e567c399ff86d007d8c4586f0dd5e0ca61e283ca > > had introduced a bug into _scanf.c. > > I noticed this first when netstat started

Re: Bug in _scanf.c

2013-03-22 Thread Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
On 18 March 2013 09:55:08 Pirmin Walthert wrote: Hello It seems like commit e567c399ff86d007d8c4586f0dd5e0ca61e283ca had introduced a bug into _scanf.c. I believe that Nathans patch applied to master b

Re: Bug in _scanf.c

2013-03-23 Thread Pirmin Walthert
On 03/22/2013 09:14 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: On 18 March 2013 09:55:08 Pirmin Walthert wrote: Hello It seems like commit e567c399ff86d007d8c4586f0dd5e0ca61e283ca had introduced a bug into

Re: Bug in _scanf.c

2013-03-29 Thread Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
On 23 March 2013 14:36, Pirmin Walthert wrote: > On 03/22/2013 09:14 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: >> >> On 18 March 2013 09:55:08 Pirmin Walthert wrote: >>> >>> Hello >>> >>> It seems like commit e567c399ff86d007d8c4586f0dd5e0ca61e283ca >>> >>>

Re: Bug in _scanf.c

2013-03-29 Thread Pirmin Walthert
On 03/29/2013 01:38 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: On 23 March 2013 14:36, Pirmin Walthert wrote: On 03/22/2013 09:14 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: On 18 March 2013 09:55:08 Pirmin Walthert wrote: Hello It seems like commit e567c399ff86d007d8c4586f0dd5e0ca61e283ca

Re: Bug in _scanf.c

2013-04-02 Thread Will Newton
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Pirmin Walthert wrote: > That's ok for me (as the most important thing is not to have a regression in > the next release) but in fact the first of the following patches would have > been enough to fix the bug. However the second patch would have been the > preferr

Re: Bug in _scanf.c

2013-04-04 Thread Pirmin Walthert
On 04/02/2013 02:43 PM, Will Newton wrote: On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Pirmin Walthert wrote: That's ok for me (as the most important thing is not to have a regression in the next release) but in fact the first of the following patches would have been enough to fix the bug. However the se