GNU bug report logs -
#8545
issues with recent doprnt-related changes
Previous Next
Reported by: Paul Eggert <eggert <at> cs.ucla.edu>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 05:48:01 UTC
Severity: normal
Done: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.
Full log
Message #23 received at 8545 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
> Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 23:02:25 -0700
> From: Paul Eggert <eggert <at> cs.ucla.edu>
> CC: 8545 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
>
> On 04/25/11 02:00, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>
> >> * Format strings never include embedded null bytes, so there's
> >> no need for doprnt to support that.
> >
> > Potentially, someone could call `error' with its first argument taken
> > from a Lisp string, which could include null characters. But again,
> > this feature was there to begin with, and I see no particular need to
> > remove it.
>
> The feature is buggy, because the code does not check
> fmt versus fmt_end every time it increases fmt; it checks
> only sometimes.
I added more checks, thanks for pointing this out.
> "%l" is a strange case anyway, since one cannot reliably use
> "%l" as an alias for "%d". For example, the format "%dx" prints
> an integer followed by an 'x', but if you try to use "%lx" instead,
> it doesn't work. At least, we should remove "%l" as a format
> specifier, as it's a rightly-unused feature and it's just asking
> for trouble to try to support it.
You convinced me, so I removed %l.
> >> * If the format string is too long, the alloca inside doprnt will
> >> crash Emacs on some hosts.
> >
> > You are right. I modified doprnt to use SAFE_ALLOCA instead.
>
> There's no need for alloca or SAFE_ALLOCA or xmalloc or any
> dynamic allocator. Instead, convert any width and precision
> values to integers, and use "*". For example, if the caller
> specifies this:
>
> "%012345.6789g", 3.14
>
> pass this to sprintf:
>
> "%0*.*g", 12345, 6789, 3.14
I see no reason for such complexity, just to avoid SAFE_ALLOCA. But
feel free to make this change, if you think it's important enough.
> >> - doprnt uses atoi (&fmtcpy[1]), but surely this isn't right if
> >> there are flags such as '-'.
> >
> > Why not? In that case, atoi will produce a negative value for
> > `width', which is already handled by the code. If I'm missing
> > something, please point out the specific problems with that.
>
> I don't see how the negative value is handled correctly.
> %-10s means to print a string right-justified, but the code
> surely treats it as if it were %0s.
??? %-10s means to print a string LEFT-justified, and the code handles
that in this loop (which runs after the string was copied to its
destination):
if (minlen < 0)
{
while (minlen < - width && bufsize > 0)
{
*bufptr++ = ' ';
bufsize--;
minlen++;
}
minlen = 0;
}
I actually tried using %-30s, and it did work correctly (as did %30s).
> And other flags
> are possible, e.g., atoi will parse "%0-3d" as if the
> width were zero, but the width is 3 (the "0" is a flag).
The code doesn't call atoi for numeric arguments. It delegates that
case to sprintf, which will handle the likes of %0-3d correctly. And
for %s and %c the "0" flag is not supported anyway (as stated in the
comments) and GCC flags that with a warning. So I see no problem
here.
> A quick second scan found a minor bug in size parsing: the
> expression "n >= SIZE_MAX / 10" should be "n > SIZE_MAX / 10".
When they get to messages as long as SIZE_MAX, let them sue me for
taking away one byte. verror will reject SIZE_MAX-long messages
anyway, so I see no reason to squeeze one more byte here just to throw
it away there.
> /* Limit the string to sizes that both Emacs and size_t can represent. */
> size_t size_max = min (MOST_POSITIVE_FIXNUM + 1, SIZE_MAX);
"MOST_POSITIVE_FIXNUM + 1" is too much, since MOST_POSITIVE_FIXNUM
should be able to cover the terminating null character in Emacs. So I
used this:
size_t size_max = min (MOST_POSITIVE_FIXNUM, SIZE_MAX);
> Thanks, can you make a similar change inside doprint? It
> also uses xrealloc where xfree+xmalloc would be better.
Done.
> One other thing, the documentation says that lower-case l
> is a flag, but it's a length modifer and not a flag.
I fixed the doc on that account.
This bug report was last modified 4 years and 251 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.