H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 06/06/2011 11:21 PM, Jim Meyering wrote: >> H. Peter Anvin wrote: >>> On 06/05/2011 09:17 AM, Jim Meyering wrote: >>>> >>>> diff --git a/libparted/arch/linux.c b/libparted/arch/linux.c >>>> index aeaf98f..111816c 100644 >>>> --- a/libparted/arch/linux.c >>>> +++ b/libparted/arch/linux.c >>>> @@ -610,7 +610,11 @@ _get_linux_version () >>>> >>>> if (uname (&uts)) >>>> return kver = 0; >>>> - if (sscanf (uts.release, "%u.%u.%u", &major, &minor, &teeny) != 3) >>>> + if (sscanf (uts.release, "%u.%u.%u", &major, &minor, &teeny) == 3) >>>> + ; /* ok */ >>>> + else if (sscanf (uts.release, "%u.%u", &major, &minor) == 2) >>>> + teeny = 0; >>>> + else >>>> return kver = 0; >>>> >>> >>> How about: >>> >>> major = minor = teeny = 0; >>> sscanf(uts.release, "%u.%u.%u", &major, &minor, &teeny); >>> >>> return kver = KERNEL_VERSION(major, minor, teeny); >> >> Thanks, that would work, modulo an invalid uts.release -- admittedly >> unlikely -- but I prefer not to ignore sscanf's return value. > > Uh... in that case you set the return value to zero anyway!
Yes, just like the original code. The reason I prefer not to ignore the return value is to avoid warnings from static analyzers. Actually, if I really cared (i.e., if there were any risk of invalid input), we would not use the crufty old sscanf in the first place. _______________________________________________ parted-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parted-devel
