Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 16:26:30 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: scanf buffer overflow; support 'hh' conversion specifier [PATCH]
In-Reply-To: <3DF70F40.4FE00660@phekda.freeserve.co.uk>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1021211162528.6492C-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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
Precedence: bulk


On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, Richard Dawe wrote:

> > I recall vaguely that some Borland compatibility is involved here.
> > Can someone please check with Borland C and Turbo C?
> 
> In section 7.19.6.2, point 14 of the C99 standard (numbered page 286, but
> actually page 300 of the PDF):
> 
> "The conversion specifiers A, E, F, G, and X are also valid and behave the
> same as,
> respectively, a, e, f, g, and x."
> 
> So we can't treat X as some Borland special-case, if we want to comply with
> the C standard.

Oh, yes we can: if the result is the same, the users won't notice.

Do you see any difference between what v2.03 does with X and what C99 
says it should?