Re: Bugs in printf/sprintf formatted output

[Maciej W. Rozycki]

Hi,

On Mon, 24 Jun 2024, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:

> > First, did you look at test/printf-corners.awk? Did that cover
> > your origial set of issues? If not, what else needs to be
> > included there?
> 
>  I haven't, I have only run verification against glibc, which already took 
> a couple of hours.  I'll have a look.

 I have looked at test/printf-corners.awk now and it seems to correctly 
cover the cases listed, except for those that use "nan" literally as input 
and produce zero formatted according to the conversion format supplied.  
As I discussed previously this is a questionable case, so maybe it's best 
not to handle it at this time.

 I have now submitted a patch series separately that extends testing so as 
to cover the bignum code paths as well, and also to cover further specific 
cases.

 I need to correct myself here:

> > >  Preexisting issues still unresolved:
> > >
> > > - missing + character in the non-bignum mode only for the input of 0 with 
> > >   the + flag, precision of 0 and the signed integer conversions, e.g.
> > >   { printf "%+.i", 0 } produces "" rather than "+",
> > >
> > > - missing space character in the non-bignum mode only for the input of 0 
> > >   with the space flag, precision of 0 and the signed integer conversions, 
> > >   e.g. { printf "% .i", 0 } produces "" rather than " ".

-- these have been partially resolved in that for the field width of 0, as 
with { printf "%+.i", 0 } and { printf "% .i", 0 }, output produced is 
correctly "+" and " " respectively, however not for the field width of 1, 
as with { printf "%+1.i", 0 } (" " produced, "+" expected) or the unsigned 
conversions such as { printf "%+.u", 0 } ("+" produced, "" expected) or
{ printf "% .u", 0 } (" " produced, "" expected).  This is an oversight of 
mine, sorry.  These cases have been covered in the patch series submitted.

  Maciej