From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13498 invoked by alias); 20 Apr 2004 15:36:09 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-hacker-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-hacker-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 13477 invoked from network); 20 Apr 2004 15:36:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pat.uio.no) (129.240.130.16) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 20 Apr 2004 15:36:09 -0000 Received: from mail-mx3.uio.no ([129.240.10.44]) by pat.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BFxI8-00079g-IT for libc-hacker@sources.redhat.com; Tue, 20 Apr 2004 17:36:08 +0200 Received: from ulrik.uio.no ([129.240.12.4]) by mail-mx3.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1BFxHz-0007ji-SU; Tue, 20 Apr 2004 17:35:59 +0200 Received: from saruman.uio.no ([129.240.201.202]) by ulrik.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #7) id 1BFxHz-0001Yn-00; Tue, 20 Apr 2004 17:35:59 +0200 Received: from pre by saruman.uio.no with local (Exim 4.30) id 1BFxHz-0003JY-5D; Tue, 20 Apr 2004 17:35:59 +0200 Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 15:36:00 -0000 From: Petter Reinholdtsen To: Glibc hackers Bcc: Petter Reinholdtsen Subject: Re: [PATCH] Tiny libc fixes Message-ID: <20040420153558.GA11499@saruman.uio.no> References: <20040420131028.GA5191@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040420131028.GA5191@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-MailScanner-Information: This message has been scanned for viruses/spam. Contact postmaster@uio.no if you have questions about this scanning X-UiO-MailScanner: No virus found X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-5, required 12, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL -5.00) X-SW-Source: 2004-04/txt/msg00070.txt.bz2 [Jakub Jelinek] > 1) Reverting the %% whitespace change from yesterday. > Some OSes don't eat the whitespace there while others do, the ISO > C99 standard only lists %c, %[ and %n as not eating whitespace, > so it is probably better to stay with previous glibc behaviour > here. I agree that it is probably a good idea to stay conservative, but believe it is a good idea to ask for the C standard to be made clearer on this point. Do you have information on how the various implementations of sscanf() behave in this respect? The Open Group Base Specification seem clearer on the issue : Input white-space characters (as specified by isspace() ) shall be skipped, unless the conversion specification includes a [ , c , C , or n conversion specifier.