X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 16:07:15 -0500
Message-Id: <200403092107.i29L7FJ6005507@envy.delorie.com>
From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <200403091926.i29JQX6i004590@envy.delorie.com> (message from DJ
	Delorie on Tue, 9 Mar 2004 14:26:33 -0500)
Subject: Re: Broken sscanf test case
References: <200403091922 DOT i29JMCqL016181 AT speedy DOT ludd DOT ltu DOT se> <200403091926 DOT i29JQX6i004590 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
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


> 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