Under Wine I see libc 2.1+ behaviour, on XP pre-2.1
behaviour with respect to the return value of snprintf.
This test may not belong to scanf.c, but it has already
contained an sprintf test, so I decided to go on. Drop me a
mail if those should be moved into some other file instead.
Index: scanf.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /home/wine/wine/dlls/msvcrt/tests/scanf.c,v
retrieving revision 1.9
diff -u -r1.9 scanf.c
--- scanf.c 28 Oct 2003 00:04:42 -0000 1.9
+++ scanf.c 31 Oct 2003 00:22:52 -0000
@@ -92,8 +92,35 @@
}
}
+static void test_snprintf (void)
+{
+ struct snprintf_test {
+ const char *format;
+ int expected;
+ };
+ /* Pre-2.1 libc behaviour, not C99 compliant. */
+ const struct snprintf_test tests[] = {{"short", 5},
+ {"justfit", 7},
+ {"justfits", 8},
+ {"muchlonger", -1}};
+ char buffer[8];
+ const int bufsiz = sizeof buffer;
+ unsigned int i;
+
+ for (i = 0; i < sizeof tests / sizeof tests[0]; i++) {
+ const char *f = tests[i].format;
+ const int e = tests[i].expected;
+ const int n = _snprintf (buffer, bufsiz, f);
+ const int v = n < 0 ? bufsiz : (n == bufsiz ? n : n+1);
+
+ ok (n == e, "\"%s\": expected %d, got %d", f, e, n);
+ ok (!memcmp (f, buffer, v), "\"%s\": got \"%.*s\"", f, v, buffer);
+ };
+}
+
START_TEST(scanf)
{
test_sscanf();
test_sprintf();
+ test_snprintf();
}
