%ls and %lc in scanf.c
Artem B. Bityuckiy
Thu Nov 27 18:17:00 GMT 2003
J. Johnston>The code and the macro references can be removed.
I can do so. Should this macro be removed only from new %ls %lc piece or
from entire vfscanf.c?
J. Johnston> You might as well be consistent with vfprintf.c. The usage
of %ls and %lc might not be used readily for new code for a particular
J. Johnston> platform, but you can never guess what an application that
you wish to port is going to do.
Jeff, sorry, I don't understand what I should do. I agree that It isn't
know whether %ls and %lc will be needed if MB_CAPABLE is disabled. But
I'm already align vfprintf.c and vfscanf.c - may be you forget something.
Let's look in vfprintf.c:552 and vfscanf.c:285. This is the main loop
that parses 'fmt' string. mb<->wc conversion is aligned here.
Let's look in vfprintf.c lines 747 (%lc) and 913 (%ls) and vscanf.c (+
patch I sent) lines 537 (%lc) and 648 (%ls). The code is also aligned - no
MB_CAPABLE checks here. If you want to see it in such places in
vfscanf.c than we should add it to vfprintf.c too - may be it is
reasonable since Newlib should be as small as possible. I can do this,
but, please, clarify this problem.
J. Johnston> The general rule should be: new code should use the Gnu
Coding standard. Old code that is brought in will be in whatever
standard it was written in. It is best to leave it alone as much as
possible so that it makes it easier to compare newer versions of the
source vs the newlib code. When making modifications, stick with the
surrounding style ("when in Rome"). If adding a new function in a file,
then it would be preferable to use the Gnu style but I can live with the
original style used in the file.
Jeff, it's not a problem, I can align this to GNU format like this:
When you clarify the issue with MB_CAPABLE I'll send new patch.
Artem B. Bityuckiy,
More information about the Newlib