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: <3AEA4F03.1B644F42@ece.gatech.edu>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 01:02:59 -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> <3AEA4B1A DOT 8BFA8CFE AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <20010428005155 DOT E12841 AT redhat DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Christopher Faylor wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 12:46:18AM -0400, Charles S. Wilson wrote:
> >Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >> 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.
> 
> Didn't Jeff's newlib changes just fix this?

Yes. That's what I meant when I said "it works now" using "current
CVS".  Jeff was not SURE that the errors he corrected were the direct
cause of this problem; he said he'd try to look into it further this
weekend in case there was some deeper cause.

THEN my build of a debuggable kernel WITH his changes FINALLY finished,
and I ran my stupid test program.  And it worked.  I reported that
fact.  Simultaneouly, Norman Vine reported that current CVS fixed some
problems folks were seeing in his port of ghostscript, and attributed
that success to Jeff's fixes in the *scanf() family.

I don't THINK further "debugging" or "motivation" is required.  I don't
think further discussion on this thread is necessary.  I think Jeff's
changes HAVE, in fact, licked this problem.

--Chuck

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