Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 13:52:51 -0400
Message-Id: <200308291752.h7THqpoT012953@envy.delorie.com>
From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <200308291742.h7THgvTw005443@speedy.ludd.luth.se> (message from
	Martin Str|mberg on Fri, 29 Aug 2003 19:42:57 +0200 (CEST))
Subject: Re: (fwd) Re: sscanf's return value
References:  <200308291742 DOT h7THgvTw005443 AT speedy DOT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
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


> I posted the following and still no comment. I think they agree
> (silence is golden). The previous articles made their option
> clear. Anyone not thinking so, please follow-up the article or one
> of its siblings in the newsgroup. Hence we do have a bug in
> *scanf(). (No I'm not volunteering to correct it.)

Glibc 2.3.2-27.9 (RHL9) agrees with you:

sscanf("", "%*[0123456789]%*c") = -1
sscanf("X", "%*[0123456789]%*c") = 0
sscanf("1", "%*[0123456789]%*c") = -1
sscanf("1X2", "%*[0123456789]%*[0123456789]") = 0