Date:	Sun, 9 Jun 2002 09:08:22 +0300 (IDT)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
cc:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Patches for building with gcc 3.1 - *scanf() chunk
In-Reply-To:	<3D02463F.B5A4C338@phekda.freeserve.co.uk>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1020609090748.12685U-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Sat, 8 Jun 2002, Richard Dawe wrote:

>     File                                  Failures
>     ----                                  ---
>     std-v202.results from djtst203.zip    395
>     std-libc.results from djtst203.zip    478
>     mtests.results from a), b) or c)      525
> 
> I don't think the *scanf() patch has caused an increase in the number of
> failures, since the result is the same with and without the patch. So, if
> there are no objections, I will commit the patch after waiting the usual week.

Yes, I think you can commit the patch, given these results.

- Raw text -