From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <SRS0=Pk1u=BO=redhat.com=fweimer@sourceware.org>
Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124])
	by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 80B6E385771E
	for <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>; Thu, 25 May 2023 17:10:24 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 80B6E385771E
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com;
	s=mimecast20190719; t=1685034623;
	h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id:
	 to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type:
	 in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references;
	bh=zqkONNsKrzigdqPNmX7ht6IeDF0rYdMhBQ93wAGyitc=;
	b=jVBQzzdpfpXa8Mm+BcxqfXGNeHg8yPl8msQxeAjTtNzuQUXGN9i+mFjdmz5My9R+2psAmx
	F37s/ljOYkV7uHykvIgyqtaSHERF4TomZEstvJYbXDKNOJzytkZvHpFaxn+CCHA7mTJnB0
	YneNS4I/FmMg49Y0rNM3VFgMUTzLhlw=
Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com
 [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS
 (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id
 us-mta-567-zJ2Ci7hWN1WYIkY9KLwEHA-1; Thu, 25 May 2023 13:10:20 -0400
X-MC-Unique: zJ2Ci7hWN1WYIkY9KLwEHA-1
Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.2])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 713E7811E78;
	Thu, 25 May 2023 17:10:20 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from oldenburg.str.redhat.com (unknown [10.2.16.8])
	by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A3B31400E117;
	Thu, 25 May 2023 17:10:19 +0000 (UTC)
From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
To: Roy Eldar <royeldar0@gmail.com>
Cc: libc-alpha@sourceware.org,  carlos@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] elf: fix handling of negative numbers in dl-printf
References: <87fs7kq2ey.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com>
	<20230525144159.2935-1-royeldar0@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2023 19:10:18 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20230525144159.2935-1-royeldar0@gmail.com> (Roy Eldar's message
	of "Thu, 25 May 2023 17:41:58 +0300")
Message-ID: <878rdcjq11.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.2
X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0
X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org
List-Id: <libc-alpha.sourceware.org>

* Roy Eldar:

> _dl_debug_vdprintf is a bare-bones printf implementation; currently
> printing a signed integer (using "%d" format specifier) behaves
> incorrectly when the number is negative, as it just prints the
> corresponding unsigned integer, preceeded by a minus sign.
>
> For example, _dl_printf("%d", -1) would print '-4294967295'.
>
> Signed-off-by: Roy Eldar <royeldar0@gmail.com>

Reviewed-by: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>

And pushed.

Thanks,
Florian