On Fri, 2020-01-03 at 17:08 -0700, Erich E. Hoover wrote:
- if (*p == '+' || *p == '-') {
tmp = val * 10 + p[i] - '0';
if (val > MAX_UINT64 / 10 || tmp < val)
if (len == 1 || (len == 2 && *(p+1) == '.')) {
for (; i < nb_digits; i++) exp++;
break;
ret = 0;
return S_OK; }
'ret' is a pointer.
ret = 0;
return S_OK;
Same here.
- for (i = 0; i < len; i++) {
if (exp & 1) exp_val *= exp_mul;
exp_mul *= exp_mul;
if (p[i] >= '0' && p[i] <= '9') continue;
if (p[i] != 'e' && p[i] != 'E' && p[i] != '.' && p[i] != '+' && p[i] != '-')
}return WS_E_INVALID_FORMAT;
Is this part really necessary? I also get new failures with a non-mingw build:
reader.c:3729: Test failed: 0: got 803d0000 reader.c:3729: Test failed: 1: got 803d0000 reader.c:3729: Test failed: 2: got 803d0000 reader.c:3729: Test failed: 8: got 803d0000 reader.c:3729: Test failed: 9: got 803d0000 reader.c:3729: Test failed: 10: got 803d0000 ...
Looks like scanf returns a different result for %n in this case. It probably shouldn't block this patch though.