On 8/2/24 09:48, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
On 2024-07-31 17:01:09+0000, Shuah Khan wrote:
On 7/31/24 12:32, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
The implementation is limited and only supports numeric arguments.
I would like to see more information in here. Why is this needed
etc. etc.
Ack.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
tools/include/nolibc/stdio.h | 93 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c | 59 ++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 152 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/include/nolibc/stdio.h b/tools/include/nolibc/stdio.h
index c968dbbc4ef8..d63c45c06d8e 100644
--- a/tools/include/nolibc/stdio.h
+++ b/tools/include/nolibc/stdio.h
@@ -348,6 +348,99 @@ int printf(const char *fmt, ...)
return ret;
}
+static __attribute__((unused))
+int vsscanf(const char *str, const char *format, va_list args)
Is there a reason why you didn't use the same code in lib/vsprintf.c?
You could simply duplicate the code here?
lib/vsprintf.c is GPL-2.0-only while nolibc is LGPL-2.1 OR MIT,
so code reuse isn't really possible.
Furthermore I think the vsprintf.c implements the custom kernel formats,
while nolibc should use posix ones.
Ack.
With all these libc functionality added, it isn't nolibc looks like :)
Well :-)
The main motivation is to provide kselftests compatibility.
Maybe Willy disagrees.
+{
+done:
+ return matches;
+}
+
+static __attribute__((unused, format(scanf, 2, 3)))
+int sscanf(const char *str, const char *format, ...)
+{
+ va_list args;
+ int ret;
+
+ va_start(args, format);
+ ret = vsscanf(str, format, args);
+ va_end(args);
+ return ret;
+}
+
static __attribute__((unused))
void perror(const char *msg)
{
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c
index 093d0512f4c5..addbceb0b276 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c
@@ -1277,6 +1277,64 @@ static int expect_vfprintf(int llen, int c, const char *expected, const char *fm
return ret;
}
+static int test_scanf(void)
Is there a rationale for the return values 1 - 14. It will be
easier to understand if there are comments in the code.
+{
+ unsigned long long ull;
+ unsigned long ul;
+ unsigned int u;
+ long long ll;
+ long l;
+ void *p;
+ int i;
+
+ if (sscanf("", "foo") != EOF)
+ return 1;
+
+ if (sscanf("foo", "foo") != 0)
+ return 2;
+
+ if (sscanf("123", "%d", &i) != 1)
+ return 3;>>> +
+ if (i != 123)
+ return 4;
+
+ if (sscanf("a123b456c0x90", "a%db%uc%p", &i, &u, &p) != 3)
+ return 5;
+
+ if (i != 123)
+ return 6;
+
+ if (u != 456)
+ return 7;
+
+ if (p != (void *)0x90)
+ return 8;
+
+ if (sscanf("a b1", "a b%d", &i) != 1)
+ return 9;
+
+ if (i != 1)
+ return 10;
+
+ if (sscanf("a%1", "a%%%d", &i) != 1)
+ return 11;
+
+ if (i != 1)
+ return 12;
+
+ if (sscanf("1|2|3|4|5|6",
+ "%d|%ld|%lld|%u|%lu|%llu",
+ &i, &l, &ll, &u, &ul, &ull) != 6)
+ return 13;
+
+ if (i != 1 || l != 2 || ll != 3 ||
+ u != 4 || ul != 5 || ull != 6)
+ return 14;
+
+ return 0;
Can we simplify this code? It is hard to read code with too
many conditions. Maybe defining an array test conditions
instead of a series ifs.
I tried that and didn't find a way.
Any pointers are welcome.
I played with this some and couldn't think of way to simplify
this without making it hard to read. It would help adding
comments though.
thanks,
-- Shuah
