Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Message-ID: <3AEA4B1A.8BFA8CFE@ece.gatech.edu>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 00:46:18 -0400
From: "Charles S. Wilson" <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (WinNT; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: cygwin 1.3.1 bug in fscanf("%lf", &a)
References: <03781128C7B74B4DBC27C55859C9D738D4296E AT es06snlnt> <3AE9ED59 DOT 7D8C51D6 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <20010428003326 DOT B12841 AT redhat DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Christopher Faylor wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 06:06:17PM -0400, Charles S. Wilson wrote:
> >This is probably related to the ongoing thread "bug report: sscanf
> >problem with cygwin 1.3.1-1".  All *scanf() functions will have a
> >similar bug.  Me, I'm still waiting on the build of my debuggable kernel
> >to finish (us poor grad students don't own fast computers....) Has
> >anybody had a chance to debug the __svfscanf_r() routine?
> 
> I haven't debugged it.  Maybe I should submit another bug report with
> a different subject.
> 
> How about
> 
> Subject:  What gives with scanf in cygwin 1.31?
> 
> That has a nice ring to it and I'm sure that the repetition will serve
> to motivate someone.

sarcasm aside, I don't think its necessary.  I rebuilt a debuggable
kernel from current CVS (of both winsup and newlib) and the scanf()
functions work.  Well, okay, I only explicitly tested vsscanf(), but
that should cover them all since __svfscanf_r() is used by all *scanf()
functions.  I didn't single-step the new version in gdb, 'cause it
worked okay (why "debug" a working routine?)

The question is: how did this problem happen?  I dunno -- chalk it up to
a thinko.  I tested my changes -- but didn't explicitly test stuff that
I *knew* was already working -- like the %f scanning in the core routine
called by all *scanf() functions.  Somehow, though, between my changes,
Jeff's changes, etc. %f parsing got broken.  But it seems fixed now.

Stuff happens.

--Chuck

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple