On Mon, 2 Nov 2015, Piotr Caban wrote:
Hi,
On 11/02/15 11:08, Martin Storsjo wrote:
@@ -724,12 +724,13 @@ int CDECL MSVCRT__stdio_common_vsprintf( unsigned __int64 options, char *str, MS struct _str_ctx_a ctx = {len, str}; int ret;
- if (options != UCRTBASE_PRINTF_LEGACY_VSPRINTF_NULL_TERMINATION &&
options != UCRTBASE_PRINTF_STANDARD_SNPRINTF_BEHAVIOUR)
- if (options & ~UCRTBASE_PRINTF_TERMINATION_MASK) FIXME("options %s not handled\n", wine_dbgstr_longlong(options));
- ret = pf_printf_a(options &
UCRTBASE_PRINTF_STANDARD_SNPRINTF_BEHAVIOUR ? puts_clbk_str_c99_a : puts_clbk_str_a,
- ret = pf_printf_a(options &
UCRTBASE_PRINTF_LEGACY_VSPRINTF_NULL_TERMINATION ? puts_clbk_str_a : puts_clbk_str_c99_a, &ctx, format, locale, FALSE, FALSE, arg_clbk_valist, NULL, &valist); puts_clbk_str_a(&ctx, 1, &nullbyte);
- if ((options & UCRTBASE_PRINTF_TERMINATION_MASK) == 0 && ret >= len)
ret = -2; return ret;This code looks like you're trying to make the things other way around. Shouldn't UCRTBASE_PRINTF_STANDARD_SNPRINTF_BEHAVIOUR flag impact the callback being used? On the other hand UCRTBASE_PRINTF_LEGACY_VSPRINTF_NULL_TERMINATION flag should probably only affect terminating NULL related behavior.
Actually, I don't think of them as two separate flags, but as having 3 different modes (with the fourth, with both flags being set, undefined). But I see what you're getting at.
Maybe following code makes more sense: ret = pf_printf_a(options & UCRTBASE_PRINTF_STANDARD_SNPRINTF_BEHAVIOUR ? puts_clbk_str_c99_a : puts_clbk_str_a, &ctx, format, locale, FALSE, FALSE, arg_clbk_valist, NULL, &valist); if(puts_clbk_str_a(&ctx, 1, &nullbyte)==-1 && !(options & UCRTBASE_PRINTF_LEGACY_VSPRINTF_NULL_TERMINATION)) { if(len) str[len-1] = 0; return -2; } return ret;
What do you think about it?
I guess this would work as well, although it took me a little while to figure out why (why the return -2 case won't be invoked when the standard snprintf behaviour is requested - because the nullbyte write will always succeed since the c99 callback left space for it).
After thinking another few minutes about it - sure, this is fine for me. Should I resend the full patchset, or only 4->10 (at least some of them will need some conflict resolution)? If I resend the full patchset, I guess I can fold in your sign-offs in 1-3 (as long as I don't modify those patches)?
// Martin