Re: test-sprintf-posix and test-snprintf-posix test failures

2024-05-01 Thread Bruno Haible
Hi Collin, > Since the bug exists from GCC 7.1 ("starts from" on the report) to GCC > 15, should those two test cases be updated? Maybe an '#if ...' or even > just a comment so it isn't reported as a new bug in the future. Your test program shows a failure with -O2 starting with gcc 7. However, t

Re: test-sprintf-posix and test-snprintf-posix test failures

2024-04-30 Thread Collin Funk
Hi Bruno, On 4/28/24 2:11 AM, Bruno Haible wrote: > Correct. I added a comment, because the situation in ISO C and POSIX has > changed, not too long ago. It took me a bit to understand what was happening. Thanks for the explination. I'm glad the standard has changed to accomodate with glibc and o

Re: test-sprintf-posix and test-snprintf-posix test failures

2024-04-28 Thread Bruno Haible
Collin Funk wrote: > > If I understand correctly, sprintf should return 4 here correct? And > > the buffer should have 5 NUL bytes. 4 from the arguments and 1 > > trailing, which is excluded from the return value. Correct. I added a comment, because the situation in ISO C and POSIX has changed, no

Re: test-sprintf-posix and test-snprintf-posix test failures

2024-04-28 Thread Collin Funk
On 4/28/24 12:38 AM, Collin Funk wrote: > If I understand correctly, sprintf should return 4 here correct? And > the buffer should have 5 NUL bytes. 4 from the arguments and 1 > trailing, which is excluded from the return value. I have no other systems to check this on, so I will trust my findings

Re: test-sprintf-posix and test-snprintf-posix test failures

2024-04-28 Thread Collin Funk
Hi Bruno, On 4/27/24 2:02 AM, Bruno Haible wrote: > At this point of the investigations, it's too early for a patch. > First, one needs to determine whether it's a bug in Gnulib or a > bug in some package we rely on (typically gcc or glibc). In the > latter case, we report the bug and wait for the

Re: test-sprintf-posix and test-snprintf-posix test failures

2024-04-27 Thread Bruno Haible
Hi Collin, > I would have worked a bit harder and tried to come up with a patch, At this point of the investigations, it's too early for a patch. First, one needs to determine whether it's a bug in Gnulib or a bug in some package we rely on (typically gcc or glibc). In the latter case, we report

Re: test-sprintf-posix and test-snprintf-posix test failures

2024-04-26 Thread Collin Funk
Hi Bruno, On 4/26/24 10:51 PM, Bruno Haible wrote: > welcome to the daily business of Gnulib test failures and workarounds! Thanks for the welcome! I would have worked a bit harder and tried to come up with a patch, but I am not very familiar with the wide character and multibyte string function

Re: test-sprintf-posix and test-snprintf-posix test failures

2024-04-26 Thread Bruno Haible
Hi Collin, welcome to the daily business of Gnulib test failures and workarounds! > backtrace from test-sprintf-posix: > == > #4 0x004090cd in test_function (my_sprintf=) at > /home/collin/.local/src/gnulib/testdir/gltests/test-sprintf-posix.h:3174 >

test-sprintf-posix and test-snprintf-posix test failures

2024-04-26 Thread Collin Funk
I see two similar test failures for test-sprintf-posix and test-sprintf-posix on Fedora 40, gcc 14, glibc 2.39. Using: $ ./gnulib-tool --create-testdir --dir testdir sprintf-posix snprintf-posix $ cd testdir $ ./configure $ make check The following tests fail: ./../build-aux/test-driver: line 1