Issue 0175: Is the sscanf example added by TC1 wrong?

This issue has been automatically converted from the original issue lists and some formatting may not have been preserved.

Authors: Clive D.W. Feather, BSI
Date: 1995-10-16
Submitted against: C90
Status: Fixed
Fixed in: C99
Converted from: dr.htm, dr_175.html

Submitted to BSI by Clive D.W. Feather clive@sco.com .

In this Defect Report, identifiers lexically identical to those declared in standard headers refer to the identifiers declared in those standard headers, whether or not the header is explicitly mentioned.

This Defect Report has been prepared with considerable help from Mark Brader, Jutta Degener, Ronald Guilmette, and a person whose employment conditions require anonymity. However, except where stated, opinions expressed or implied should not be assumed to be those of any person other than myself.

Defect Report UK 023: Correction to Technical Corrigendum 1

An example added by TC1 is wrong.

TC1 added the following example to subclause 7.9.6.2:

In:

  #include  stdio.h
         /* ..... */
         int d1, d2, n1, n2, i;
        i = sscanf("123", "%d%n%n%d", &d1, &n1, &n2, &d2);

the value 123 is assigned to d1 and the value 3 to n1. Because %n can never get an input failure the value of 3 is also assigned to n2. The value of d2 is not affected. The value 3 is assigned to i.

This should set i to 1, not 3, as %n does not affect the returned assignment count.

Suggested Technical Corrigendum

In the example, change:

The value 3 is assigned to i.

to:

The value 1 is assigned to i.