Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

mprintf: do not ignore length modifiers of %o, %x, %X #15348

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

ArtSin
Copy link
Contributor

@ArtSin ArtSin commented Oct 21, 2024

There are uses of %lx and %zx in the codebase, but parsefmt interpreted them as %x.

There are uses of `%lx` and `%zx` in the codebase, but `parsefmt`
interpreted them as `%x`.
@dfandrich
Copy link
Contributor

Analysis of PR #15348 at 22423c41:

Test 284 failed, which has NOT been flaky recently, so there could be a real issue in this PR.

Test 285 failed, which has NOT been flaky recently, so there could be a real issue in this PR.

Test 980 failed, which has NOT been flaky recently, so there could be a real issue in this PR.

Test 1049 failed, which has NOT been flaky recently, so there could be a real issue in this PR.

Test 1093 failed, which has NOT been flaky recently, so there could be a real issue in this PR.

Test 1094 failed, which has NOT been flaky recently, so there could be a real issue in this PR.

Test http/test_09_push.py::TestPush::test_09_02_h2_push[0] failed, which has NOT been flaky recently, so there could be a real issue in this PR.

There are more failures, but that's enough from Gha.

Generated by Testclutch

@bagder
Copy link
Member

bagder commented Oct 21, 2024

Lovely! Do you think test 557 can be expanded to test %lx and %zx as well ?

@ArtSin
Copy link
Contributor Author

ArtSin commented Oct 22, 2024

Lovely! Do you think test 557 can be expanded to test %lx and %zx as well ?

%o, %x, %X are not tested in 557, should I add them? Would one check per int/long + %o/%x/%X combination be enough?

Also %x and %X are treated as unsigned, while %o is not. Should this be fixed as well? I found only two uses of %o, both with unsigned int's.

@bagder
Copy link
Member

bagder commented Oct 22, 2024

%o, %x, %X are not tested in 557, should I add them? Would one check per int/long + %o/%x/%X combination be enough?

Please do, and I figure getting just something added there will be a step up from having nothing!

Also %x and %X are treated as unsigned, while %o is not. Should this be fixed as well? I found only two uses of %o, both with unsigned int's.

Sounds appropriate. %o should be considered unsigned!

`%x` and `%X` were already treated as unsigned, but `%o` was not, even though
it was used with unsigned numbers.
@github-actions github-actions bot added the tests label Oct 22, 2024
@bagder bagder closed this in 7ca164f Oct 24, 2024
bagder pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 24, 2024
`%x` and `%X` were already treated as unsigned, but `%o` was not, even
though it was used with unsigned numbers.

Closes #15348
@bagder
Copy link
Member

bagder commented Oct 24, 2024

Thanks!

@ArtSin ArtSin deleted the mprintf-fix-o-x-length branch October 25, 2024 15:46
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants