Pádraig Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jim Meyering wrote: >> Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> But my libc's printf() returned -1, signalling failure. coreutils >>> interpreted >>> that as "was empty output, ok". I would have expected an error message and >>> an >>> exit status of 1. >> >> Strange indeed. >> Could it be a bug in printf for failing, yet not setting the >> stream-failure indicator that is checked by close_stdout's ferror? > > I would think the stream failure indicator would only be set > on failures related to the actual output. A little googling > also suggests that SUSv3 says that for *printf() > possible reasons for failure which doesn't set the > streams error indicator, are EILSEQ, EINVAL, and ENOMEM.
Thanks. You're right. I reproduced it like this: $ (ulimit -v 10000; /cu/src/printf %.10000000f 17 | wc -c) 0 So it's a bug in coreutils' printf.c program. I'll fix that. _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list Bug-coreutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
