From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24945 invoked by alias); 30 Sep 2005 20:50:47 -0000 Mailing-List: contact glibc-bugs-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: glibc-bugs-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 24065 invoked by uid 48); 30 Sep 2005 20:50:16 -0000 Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 20:50:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050930205016.24064.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "funtoos at yahoo dot com" To: glibc-bugs@sources.redhat.com In-Reply-To: <20050810161252.1190.funtoos@yahoo.com> References: <20050810161252.1190.funtoos@yahoo.com> Reply-To: sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org Subject: [Bug libc/1190] fgetc()/fread() behaviour is not POSIX compliant X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-09/txt/msg00379.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From funtoos at yahoo dot com 2005-09-30 20:50 ------- its a simple thing. fgetc() needs to return EOF if EOF is what the last call had returned and is set on the stream, even though there is new data ready to be read. EOF should be explicitly cleared (by the programmer) before the next call to fgetc() is made by the programmer. This is a simple POSIX compliance requirement as per the links I provided. What do we need a test case for? Are you saying that the behaviour reported in the example is not the current behaviour of glibc? -- What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|WAITING |NEW http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1190 ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.