Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 14:20:19 +0000 From: "Laurent Bercot" <ska-dietlibc@...rnet.org> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com 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: L Specifies that a following a, A, e, E, f, F, g, or G conversion specifier applies to an argument with type pointer to long double. from http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/scanf.html 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_. -- Laurent
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.