On 2017-08-29 01:35, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> Hi Brian,
>
> On Aug 25 11:47, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> On Aug 24 11:11, Brian Inglis wrote:
>>> On 2017-08-24 03:40, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>>> On Aug 24 11:32, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>>>> On Aug 23 13:25, Brian Inglis wrote:
>>>>>> Cygwin strptime(3) (also strptime(1)) fails with default width, without
>>>>>> an
>>>>>> explicit width, because of the test in the following code:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> case 'F': /* The date as "%Y-%m-%d". */
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> LEGAL_ALT(0);
>>>>>> ymd |= SET_YMD;
>>>>>> char *tmp = __strptime ((const char *) bp, "%Y-%m-%d",
>>>>>> tm, era_info, alt_digits,
>>>>>> locale);
>>>>>> if (tmp && (uint) (tmp - (char *) bp) > width)
>>>>>> return NULL;
>>>>>> bp = (const unsigned char *) tmp;
>>>>>> continue;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> as default width is zero so test fails and returns NULL.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Simple patch for this as with the other cases supporting width is to
>>>>>> change the
>>>>>> test to:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> if (tmp && width && (uint) (tmp - (char *) bp) > width)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> but this does not properly support [+0] flags or width in the format as
>>>>>> specified by glibc (latest POSIX punts on %F) for compatibility with
>>>>>> strftime(),
>>>>>> affecting only the %Y format, supplying %[+0]<w-6>F, to support signed
>>>>>> and zero
>>>>>> filled fixed and variable length year fields in %F format.
>>>> Btw., FreeBSD's _strptime only calls _strptime recursively, without any
>>>> checks for field width:
>>> As did Cygwin, which just did a goto recurse, before it was changed to
>>> support
>>> explicit width. Your call and option to go back and ignore it, patch bug, or
>>> forward and support flags and width based on strftime documentation.
>>
>> Well, I guess it depends on how much time you're willing to invest here.
>> If you're inclined to fix this per POSIX, you're welcome, of course.
>
> My vacation is approaching, so I'd like to get out the 2.9.0 release
> next week. Naturally I wonder if and how you're proceeding on this
> issue. Would it make sense, perhaps, if you just send the quick fix
> so we can get 2.9.0 out?
Attached - got diverted during strptime testing due to time functions gmtime,
localtime, mktime, strftime not properly handling struct tm->tm_year == INT_MAX
=> year == INT_MAX + 1900 so year needs to be at least long in Cygwin 64, also
affecting tzcalc_limits, and depending on what is required to properly handle
time_t in Cygwin 32.
--
Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
From 19a3c20c705a576fee0f0e71a31f0c3ac553e612 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Brian Inglis <brian.ing...@systematicsw.ab.ca>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 11:25:43 -0600
Subject: [PATCH] winsup/cygwin/libc/strptime.cc(__strptime) fix %F width
---
winsup/cygwin/libc/strptime.cc | 6 ++++--
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/winsup/cygwin/libc/strptime.cc b/winsup/cygwin/libc/strptime.cc
index 7c6cc2024..081aca385 100644
--- a/winsup/cygwin/libc/strptime.cc
+++ b/winsup/cygwin/libc/strptime.cc
@@ -413,13 +413,15 @@ literal:
case 'F': /* The date as "%Y-%m-%d". */
{
LEGAL_ALT(0);
- ymd |= SET_YMD;
char *tmp = __strptime ((const char *) bp, "%Y-%m-%d",
tm, era_info, alt_digits,
locale);
- if (tmp && (uint) (tmp - (char *) bp) > width)
+ /* width max chars converted, default 10, < 6 => 6 */
+ if (tmp && (char *) bp +
+ (!width ? 10 : width < 6 ? 6 : width) < tmp)
return NULL;
bp = (const unsigned char *) tmp;
+ ymd |= SET_YMD;
continue;
}
--
2.14.1
