Re: Add support for hex floats to *scanf
On 2021-04-03, Michael Forney wrote: > On 2020-01-28, Michael Forney wrote: >> On 2019-05-28, Michael Forney wrote: >>> I noticed that OpenBSD's fscanf doesn't yet support hex float strings, >>> which are standardized in C99. I am using them in my application (which >>> I would like to support OpenBSD), since the "%a" format specifier is a >>> convenient way to preserve the exact floating point value. >>> >>> strtod already supports parsing hex floats, so it is just the scanner >>> in __svfscanf that needed changes. >>> >>> The implementation reuses the PFXOK and NZDIGITS flags from CT_INT >>> scanning and follows similar logic to CT_INT. This required allocating >>> new flag values for DPTOK and EXPOK. >>> >>> I did my best to follow style(9), but since the indentation level of >>> this >>> switch is so high, I found it difficult wrap lines nicely. I noticed >>> that >>> several existing lines broke the "space around binary operators" rule if >>> the added space would require unnatural wrapping, so I did the same >>> here. >>> >>> I wasn't sure which comments I should carry over from the CT_INT case >>> (for example, above `case 'x':`), or if any of the other changes require >>> additional comments. Please let me know if they do. >> >> Just bumping this so it doesn't get forgotten. I'd be happy to address >> any feedback anyone might have. > > Ping. Ping again.
Re: Add support for hex floats to *scanf
On 2020-01-28, Michael Forney wrote: > On 2019-05-28, Michael Forney wrote: >> I noticed that OpenBSD's fscanf doesn't yet support hex float strings, >> which are standardized in C99. I am using them in my application (which >> I would like to support OpenBSD), since the "%a" format specifier is a >> convenient way to preserve the exact floating point value. >> >> strtod already supports parsing hex floats, so it is just the scanner >> in __svfscanf that needed changes. >> >> The implementation reuses the PFXOK and NZDIGITS flags from CT_INT >> scanning and follows similar logic to CT_INT. This required allocating >> new flag values for DPTOK and EXPOK. >> >> I did my best to follow style(9), but since the indentation level of this >> switch is so high, I found it difficult wrap lines nicely. I noticed that >> several existing lines broke the "space around binary operators" rule if >> the added space would require unnatural wrapping, so I did the same here. >> >> I wasn't sure which comments I should carry over from the CT_INT case >> (for example, above `case 'x':`), or if any of the other changes require >> additional comments. Please let me know if they do. > > Just bumping this so it doesn't get forgotten. I'd be happy to address > any feedback anyone might have. Ping.
Re: Add support for hex floats to *scanf
>> I wasn't sure which comments I should carry over from the CT_INT case >> (for example, above `case 'x':`), or if any of the other changes require >> additional comments. Please let me know if they do. > > Just bumping this so it doesn't get forgotten. I'd be happy to address > any feedback anyone might have. The looks good to me. I've managed to destroy my main computer, and am waiting for replacement hardware to ship -- but if nobody has objections, I'll commit as soon as I get things back up. ok orib@
Re: Add support for hex floats to *scanf
On 2019-05-28, Michael Forney wrote: > I noticed that OpenBSD's fscanf doesn't yet support hex float strings, > which are standardized in C99. I am using them in my application (which > I would like to support OpenBSD), since the "%a" format specifier is a > convenient way to preserve the exact floating point value. > > strtod already supports parsing hex floats, so it is just the scanner > in __svfscanf that needed changes. > > The implementation reuses the PFXOK and NZDIGITS flags from CT_INT > scanning and follows similar logic to CT_INT. This required allocating > new flag values for DPTOK and EXPOK. > > I did my best to follow style(9), but since the indentation level of this > switch is so high, I found it difficult wrap lines nicely. I noticed that > several existing lines broke the "space around binary operators" rule if > the added space would require unnatural wrapping, so I did the same here. > > I wasn't sure which comments I should carry over from the CT_INT case > (for example, above `case 'x':`), or if any of the other changes require > additional comments. Please let me know if they do. Just bumping this so it doesn't get forgotten. I'd be happy to address any feedback anyone might have.
