Re: libio bugs

[Mark Mitchell <mmitchell@usa.net>]

    Mark Mitchell <mmitchell@usa.net> writes:

    |>>>>>> "Andreas" == Andreas Schwab <schwab@issan.informatik.uni-dortmund.de> writes:

    |> uses of them in libio.  Is that OK?  Are there problems with
    |> link-compatibility, i.e., does naming the fields in struct printf_info
    |> make sure that they are initialized in some order different than the
    |> order that would be specified by the usual initialization syntax?  (I
    |> note that the current initialization order is exactly the same as that
    |> in GLIBC 2.)

    The current development version of glibc 2 adds another bitfield before
    the last field in struct printf_info, it now looks like this (is_char is
    new):

Well, my patch is in.  So, somebody needs to modify the two uses of
printf_info in iostream.cc to initialize the is_char flag
appropriately, for those versions of glibc for which it should be
initialized.  Andreas, are you willing to do this?  You've probably
got a better understanding of how to test for the right versions of
glibc and so forth.

    struct printf_info
    {
      int prec;			/* Precision.  */
      int width;			/* Width.  */
      wchar_t spec;			/* Format letter.  */
      unsigned int is_long_double:1;/* L flag.  */
      unsigned int is_short:1;	/* h flag.  */
      unsigned int is_long:1;	/* l flag.  */
      unsigned int alt:1;		/* # flag.  */
      unsigned int space:1;		/* Space flag.  */
      unsigned int left:1;		/* - flag.  */
      unsigned int showsign:1;	/* + flag.  */
      unsigned int group:1;		/* ' flag.  */
      unsigned int extra:1;		/* For special use.  */
      unsigned int is_char:1;	/* hh flag.  */
      wchar_t pad;			/* Padding character.  */
    };

-- 
Mark Mitchell		mmitchell@usa.net
Stanford University	http://www.stanford.edu