On 1/8/19 2:22 PM, Hugo Beauzée-Luyssen wrote: > On Thu, Dec 20, 2018, at 2:53 AM, Bruno Haible wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Hugo Beauzée-Luyssen wrote: >>> 12-14 19:10:02.633 F DEBUG : pid: 31664, tid: 32389, name: VlcObject >>> >>> org.videolan.vlc <<< >>> 12-14 19:10:02.633 F DEBUG : signal 6 (SIGABRT), code -1 (SI_QUEUE), >>> fault addr -------- >>> 12-14 19:10:02.633 F DEBUG : Abort message: 'FORTIFY: %n not allowed on >>> Android' >> >> Indeed, %n in *printf is not allowed on Android, see >> https://android.googlesource.com/platform/bionic/+/master/libc/stdio/vfprintf.cpp >> https://android.googlesource.com/platform/bionic/+/master/docs/status.md >> >>> diff --git a/lib/vasnprintf.c b/lib/vasnprintf.c >>> index af3fcd1c7..e41d5f706 100644 >>> --- a/lib/vasnprintf.c >>> +++ b/lib/vasnprintf.c >>> @@ -4874,7 +4874,8 @@ VASNPRINTF (DCHAR_T *resultbuf, size_t *lengthp, >>> # if ! (((__GLIBC__ > 2 || (__GLIBC__ == 2 && __GLIBC_MINOR__ >= 3)) >>> \ >>> && !defined __UCLIBC__) >>> \ >>> || (defined __APPLE__ && defined __MACH__) >>> \ >>> - || (defined _WIN32 && ! defined __CYGWIN__)) >>> + || (defined _WIN32 && ! defined __CYGWIN__) >>> \ >>> + || defined __ANDROID__) >>> fbp[1] = '%'; >>> fbp[2] = 'n'; >>> fbp[3] = '\0'; >> >> The patch looks good at first sight. But when you look at the comments a >> couple of lines before it, you see that one can avoid %n only >> if snprintf behaves well enough. To this effect, can you please report >> the configure results (from a *native* Android compilation, not a cross- >> compilation) of these tests: >> >> 1 = checking whether printf supports size specifiers as in C99... >> 2 = checking whether printf supports 'long double' arguments... >> 3 = checking whether printf supports infinite 'double' arguments... >> 4 = checking whether printf supports infinite 'long double' arguments... >> 5 = checking whether printf supports the 'a' and 'A' directives... >> 6 = checking whether printf supports the 'F' directive... >> 7 = checking whether printf supports the 'n' directive... >> 8 = checking whether printf supports the 'ls' directive... >> 9 = checking whether printf supports POSIX/XSI format strings with >> positions... >> 10 = checking whether printf supports the grouping flag... >> 11 = checking whether printf supports the left-adjust flag correctly... >> 12 = checking whether printf supports the zero flag correctly... >> 13 = checking whether printf supports large precisions... >> 14 = checking whether printf survives out-of-memory conditions... >> 15 = checking for snprintf... >> 16 = checking whether snprintf truncates the result as in C99... >> 17 = checking whether snprintf returns a byte count as in C99... >> 18 = checking whether snprintf fully supports the 'n' directive... >> 19 = checking whether snprintf respects a size of 1... >> 20 = checking whether vsnprintf respects a zero size as in C99... >> >> You should find these in the configure output of any package that >> uses gnulib's 'vasnprintf' module. If you don't have one at hand, >> create one using >> ./gnulib-tool --create-testdir --dir=testdir --single-configure vasnprintf >> >> Thanks. >> >> Bruno >> > > Hi, > > I'm probably missing something, but for me this only seems to test for > snprintf/printf/vasnprintf availability (including running configure in the > generated test directory)
I would really like to see the patch in gnulib as soon as possible. @hugo If it's not too much hassle, could you please provide the requested information ? Regards, Tim
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature