| Summary: | SDL_sscanf() problem | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | SDL | Reporter: | eugeneopalev |
| Component: | main | Assignee: | Sam Lantinga <slouken> |
| Status: | RESOLVED ABANDONED | QA Contact: | Sam Lantinga <slouken> |
| Severity: | normal | ||
| Priority: | P2 | CC: | philipp.wiesemann |
| Version: | 2.0.4 | ||
| Hardware: | x86 | ||
| OS: | Windows 7 | ||
| Attachments: | Example code | ||
SDL_vsscanf() is not implemented correctly. Sam, how dangerous would it be to correct this behavior in our sscanf() code? No idea if anything relies on this being wrong. --ryan. Nothing is relying on this behavior, it would be fine to fix. Fixed, thanks! https://hg.libsdl.org/SDL/rev/10b07421903d Hello, and sorry if you're getting dozens of copies of this message by email. We are closing out bugs that appear to be abandoned in some form. This can happen for lots of reasons: we couldn't reproduce it, conversation faded out, the bug was noted as fixed in a comment but we forgot to mark it resolved, the report is good but the fix is impractical, we fixed it a long time ago without realizing there was an associated report, etc. Individually, any of these bugs might have a better resolution (such as WONTFIX or WORKSFORME or INVALID) but we've added a new resolution of ABANDONED to make this easily searchable and make it clear that it's not necessarily unreasonable to revive a given bug report. So if this bug is still a going concern and you feel it should still be open: please feel free to reopen it! But unless you respond, we'd like to consider these bugs closed, as many of them are several years old and overwhelming our ability to prioritize recent issues. (please note that hundred of bug reports were sorted through here, so we apologize for any human error. Just reopen the bug in that case!) Thanks, --ryan. |
Created attachment 2461 [details] Example code Why does SDL_sscanf() always returns the number of format specifiers and doesn't implements standard C library behavior?