X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From:	Eric Blake <ebb9 AT byu DOT net>
Subject:	Re: 1.5.24: gcc / libc problem with sscanf
Date:	Tue, 17 Apr 2007 15:13:18 +0000 (UTC)
Lines:	19
Message-ID:	<loom.20070417T170958-496@post.gmane.org>
References:	<4624D8C0 DOT 6010809 AT id DOT ethz DOT ch>
Mime-Version:	1.0
User-Agent:	Loom/3.14 (http://gmane.org/)
X-IsSubscribed:	yes
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

Matteo Corti <matteo.corti <at> id.ethz.ch> writes:

> Hi,
> 
> I get strange results when using the %zi flag for the sscanf and fscanf
> functions.

That's because nobody has implemented it in newlib yet.  Likewise, scanf("%a") 
is broken, as is scanf("%1$i"), and several other POSIX-required features.

I might get around to fixing *scanf in newlib, after my improvements to *printf 
are accepted (I'm currently waiting for feedback on 
http://sourceware.org/ml/newlib/2007/msg00363.html).  But if you want to also 
contribute patches, it will go faster.

-- 
Eric Blake




--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -