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 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

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_together ==

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 final