This is the mail archive of the libc-hacker@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the glibc project.

Note that libc-hacker is a closed list. You may look at the archives of this list, but subscription and posting are not open.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] Tiny libc fixes

From: Petter Reinholdtsen <pere at hungry dot com>
To: Glibc hackers <libc-hacker at sources dot redhat dot com>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 17:35:58 +0200
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Tiny libc fixes
Bcc: Petter Reinholdtsen <petter dot reinholdtsen at usit dot uio dot no>
References: <20040420131028.GA5191@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz>

[Jakub Jelinek]
> 1) Reverting the %% whitespace change from yesterday.
>    Some OSes don't eat the whitespace there while others do, the ISO
>    C99 standard only lists %c, %[ and %n as not eating whitespace,
>    so it is probably better to stay with previous glibc behaviour
>    here.

I agree that it is probably a good idea to stay conservative, but
believe it is a good idea to ask for the C standard to be made clearer
on this point.

Do you have information on how the various implementations of sscanf()
behave in this respect?

The Open Group Base Specification seem clearer on the issue
<URL:http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007904975/functions/sscanf.html>:

  Input white-space characters (as specified by isspace() ) shall be
  skipped, unless the conversion specification includes a [ , c , C ,
  or n conversion specifier.

References:
- [PATCH] Tiny libc fixes
  - From: Jakub Jelinek

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]