[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110715033729.GP16618@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 23:37:29 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: cluts - numeric test expectations
I've been reviewing the numeric tests in cluts some more and based on
discussions in the previous thread and on irc, here's where things
seem to stand:
Tests which expect strto* on "0x[junk]" to fail rather than returning
0 with endptr pointing at the 'x': both my interpretation of the
standard and glibc agree that this expectation is wrong, as does at
least one expert I asked. I think these should be changed to accept
the current musl and glibc behavior and treat anything else as a
failure. (Note that the scanf tests, however, seem to be fine.)
Tests which expect *endptr==str after overflow (ERANGE): I believe
this expectation is incorrect, but glibc seems to disagree. I can't
find any language in the standard to support the behavior explicitly,
or to allow it as an interpretation. The definition of "subject
sequence" makes no reference to the value having to fit in a
certain-size integer type, only that it belong to a clearly-defined
regular language, e.g. /[-+]?(0x)?[[:xdigit:]]+/ for base==16.
Otherwise, all the integer tests look okay. I still need to review the
floating point ones.
Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
