From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28150 invoked by alias); 9 Dec 2019 17:09:02 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 28133 invoked by uid 89); 9 Dec 2019 17:09:01 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-10.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=H*i:sk:CAKCAbM, H*MI:sk:CAKCAbM, H*f:sk:CAKCAbM X-HELO: mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/11] ldbl-128ibm-compat: Fix selection of GNU and ISO C99 scanf To: Zack Weinberg Cc: "Gabriel F. T. Gomes" , GNU C Library References: <20191203170540.18428-1-gabriel@inconstante.net.br> <20191203170540.18428-2-gabriel@inconstante.net.br> From: Paul E Murphy Message-ID: <733c9494-34fe-b169-5a94-aa7dc0a0016e@linux.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2019 17:09:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2019-12/txt/msg00295.txt.bz2 On 12/9/19 10:49 AM, Zack Weinberg wrote: > On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 11:46 AM Paul E Murphy wrote: >> On 12/3/19 11:05 AM, Gabriel F. T. Gomes wrote: >>> From: "Gabriel F. T. Gomes" >>> >>> New since v2. >>> >>> -- 8< -- >>> Since commit >>> >>> commit 03992356e6fedc5a5e9d32df96c1a2c79ea28a8f >>> Author: Zack Weinberg >>> Date: Sat Feb 10 11:58:35 2018 -0500 >>> >>> Use C99-compliant scanf under _GNU_SOURCE with modern compilers. >>> >>> the selection of the GNU versions of scanf functions requires both >>> _GNU_SOURCE and -std=c89. This patch changes the tests in >>> ldbl-128ibm-compat so that they actually test the GNU versions (without >>> this change, the redirection to the ISO C99 version always happens, so >>> GNU versions of the new implementation (e.g. __scanfieee128) were left >>> untested). >> >> Good catch Zach, thanks. > > Credit is actually due to Gabriel; if I understand correctly, I > _introduced_ a bug here! > > zw > I stand corrected. I wonder how frail some of these tests might become as they age. Is framework available today to verify tests are linking against the desired variants of a symbol?