Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/2004/03/11/05:21:54
>
>
> > Could you run the altered test case on Linux and see what it thinks?
>
> FYI I ran these on RHL 9. They fail both before AND after your patch:
>
> $ ./before.x
> Test 8: FAIL: ("1", "%[0123456789]%*c");
> expected -1;
> expected c1 '1';
> expected c2 '';
> got 1;
> c == '1'
> c2 == ''
> Test 18: FAIL: ("1", "%[0123456789]%c");
> expected -1;
> expected c1 '1';
> expected c2 '';
> got 1;
> c == '1'
> c2 == ''
> FAIL
>
>
> $ ./after.x
> Test 3: FAIL: ("1", "%*[0123456789]%*c");
> expected 0;
> expected c1 '';
> expected c2 '';
> got -1;
> c == ''
> c2 == ''
> Test 13: FAIL: ("1", "%*[0123456789]%c");
> expected 0;
> expected c1 '';
> expected c2 '';
> got -1;
> c == ''
> c2 == ''
> FAIL
This matches Solaris 2.6 as well.
I still claim that test cases 3 and 13 are right. If/When I find time
I'll ask at comp.std.c.
We do have consensus on 8 and 18 currently being wrong, right?
Right,
MartinS
This communication is confidential and intended solely for the addressee(s). Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you believe this message has been sent to you in error, please notify the sender by replying to this transmission and delete the message without disclosing it. Thank you.
E-mail including attachments is susceptible to data corruption, interruption, unauthorized amendment, tampering and viruses, and we only send and receive e-mails on the basis that we are not liable for any such corruption, interception, amendment, tampering or viruses or any consequences thereof.
- Raw text -