Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 14:20:19 +0000
From: "Laurent Bercot" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scanf: handle the L modifier for integers

>Without this patch, ret will be 1 and mask will be 0. It is obviously
>incorrect. According to the man page, L should work like ll:
>L Indicates that the conversion will be either e, f, or g and the
>   next pointer is a pointer to long double or the conversion will
>   be d, i, o, u, or x and the next pointer is a pointer to long
>   long.

  This is a GNU extension. POSIX states that L is only valid before
a floating-point conversion specifier:

     Specifies that a following a, A, e, E, f, F, g, or G conversion 
     applies to an argument with type pointer to long double.


  So, it is valid for musl not to accept %Lx.
  Now, the argument that it's a good idea to align musl's behaviour to
glibc's whenever possible is a sensible one. But it's a decision for
the musl authors to make, and the pros and cons need to be carefully
balanced; musl's current behaviour is not _incorrect_.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.