Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
Re: printf bug(s?)
- X-seq: zsh-workers 21355
- From: Harald van Dĳk <truedfx@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: zsh-workers@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: printf bug(s?)
- Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 15:22:32 +0200
- In-reply-to: <8037.1118996107@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Mailing-list: contact zsh-workers-help@xxxxxxxxxx; run by ezmlm
- References: <42B2203B.3060602@xxxxxxxxxx> <8037.1118996107@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Oliver Kiddle wrote:
> Harald van D?k wrote:
>>When I run the command printf '%', zsh 4.2.5 gives me a segfault. It
> I can't reproduce the segfault on any system I have access to so perhaps
> it is platform specific. Your fix looks right so I'll commit it to
> CVS. Thanks.
I`m using a rather plain Linux system (glibc 2,3,5, gcc 3.4.4), and in
the end zsh was configured with --prefix=$HOME/zsh --enable-zsh-debug,
nothing special. (I'm not sure on the original configuration.) It
doesn't always segfault since it depends on whatever happens to be in
memory after the format string. A pretty reliable way for me to get it
segfaulted is with for x in %; do printf $(echo $x); done on the command
line, or much more simply, zsh -c 'printf %'. However, even just
entering 'printf %' on the command line segfaulted for me sometimes.
Though it doesn't really matter; I guess it's good if you can't
reproduce it :) Thanks.
>>That segfault I noticed when I tried to run printf '\045'. I expected
>>this to print a single character '%', the same as printf '%%' would. zsh
>>instead treats it exactly as an ordinary % character. Is this a bug, or
> It's not a bug as such. Note that it is entirely consistent with how
> printf works from C. I think there was a brief discussion about it when
> printf was first added.
> The current implementation makes it easier to share the \ handling code
> with echo. It just calls getkeystring() on the whole format
> specification first. I seem to remember that, at the time, a survey of
> how other printf implementations worked showed a complete mix so it
> seemed justifiable to take the lazy option. However, I would agree that
> your expected behaviour would probably be better.
Oh, there are other printfs that behave the same? That I didn't know; in
that case, I may be better off avoiding using \045 anyway and just
replace it with %%...
>>" "\ddd", where ddd is a one, two, or three-digit octal number, shall
>> be written as a byte with the numeric value specified by the octal
>> number. "
> It's difficult to know whether it was intended by the wording or not.
> However, that wording also means that \7 should output a bell character
> (you need \07 at the moment). Annoyingly, the specification for how \
> escapes work is subtly different for echo and printf. I think \c has a
> different definition too.
Ah, right. As another example, \0007 should print a single character
with echo, but two ('\0' and '7') with printf '\0007'. However, printf
'%b' '\0007' should still print a single character...
> So what we probably need to do is have the printf code handle \ escapes
> itself at the same time as it scans through the specification looking
> for format specifiers.
Either that, or you could modify getkeystring to be able to treat the
string the way a printf format string should be treated. That seems to
be a bit less work to me. Though, putting it with the % scanning would
mean being able to avoid %\nnn... printf '%\0163\n' 'Hello' works right
now, and modifying getkeystring would make printf '%\163\n' 'Hello' work.
But I'll be happy with whatever you decide to do.
> This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended recipient(s) only. It may contain proprietary material, confidential information and/or be subject to legal privilege. It should not be copied, disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party. If you are not an intended recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any attachment and all copies and inform the sender. Thank you.
Messages sorted by: