Re: [PATCH] msvcrt: Fix fscanf return when EOF is immediately after an end of line.

[Erich E. Hoover]

Ah, well - glad I asked :)  How much specificity do you want in
figuring out where this got fixed? (since there are no tests before
msvcr90)

Best,
Erich

On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 1:22 PM Piotr Caban  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The test is not failing on msvcr120 only because it’s skipped on all machines.
>
> The tests are linked agains msvcrt.dll, you need to load the function dynamically.
>
> Thanks,
> Piotr
> > On 18 Oct 2019, at 21:15, Erich E. Hoover  wrote:
> >
> > Wow, thanks Piotr!
> >
> > Are you sure you were testing against msvcr90?  I just ran a couple
> > tries against the testbot and I see it doing what we expect on
> > msvcr120, but msvcr90 it's giving 0 (
> > https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=57997 ).  I'll go through
> > and establish exactly what version they fixed this in, but I want to
> > make sure that there isn't something weird going on with msvcr90.
> >
> > Best,
> > Erich
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 12:45 PM Piotr Caban  wrote:
> > > Hi Erich,
> > >
> > > I've done some testing and here's what I found:
> > > - swscanf in msvcrt returns 0 as you have described
> > > - swscanf in msvcr90 returns WEOF
> > > - __stdio_common_vswscanf in ucrtbase returns WEOF
> > >
> > > It looks like there's a bug/backward compatibility code in native
> > > msvcrt.dll. It would be good to do some more testing on different
> > > *wscanf functions in msvcrt.
> > >
> > > I guess that the way to go is to:
> > > - add swscanf tests in msvcrt (you can use L"" there)
> > > - add swscanf tests in one of the newer dlls
> > > - make the implementation change specific to newer versions of C-runtime
> > >
> > > Hope it helps,
> > > Piotr
> > >
> > > On 10/18/19 5:40 PM, Erich E. Hoover wrote:
> > > > Hi Piotr,
> > > >
> > > > I just ran the widecharstring case on the testbot (
> > > > https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=57989 ) and that seems to
> > > > return 0 instead of WEOF...  Are you alright with just adding this
> > > > test to demonstrate that it doesn't work the same way?  Failing test:
> > > > ===
> > > >     buffer[0] = ' ';
> > > >     buffer[1] = '\t';
> > > >     buffer[2] = '\n';
> > > >     buffer[3] = '\n';
> > > >     buffer[4] = 0;
> > > >     ret = swscanf(buffer, formats, results);
> > > >     ok( ret == (short)WEOF, "ret = %d\n", ret );
> > > > ===
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Erich
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 3:49 AM Piotr Caban  wrote:
> > > > > Hi Erich,
> > > > >
> > > > > On 10/17/19 5:41 PM, Erich E. Hoover wrote:
> > > > > > -
> > > > > >                /* if we have reached the EOF and output nothing then report EOF */
> > > > > > -
> > > > > >                if (nch==_EOF_  && rd==0 && st==0) {
> > > > >
> > > > > _UNLOCK_FILE_(file);
> > > > > > -
> > > > > >                    return _EOF_RET;
> > > > > > -
> > > > > >                }
> > > > >
> > > > > Please also update the widecharstring case.
> > > > > > - fp = fopen(file_name, "wb");
> > > > > > - ok(fp, "fp = %p\n", fp);
> > > > >
> > > > > This cause compilation warning.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Piotr