This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] correct %g handling with unknown arguments in -fprintf-return-value (PR 78696)


On 12/12/2016 05:06 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
+    /* The lower bound when precision isn't specified is 8 bytes
+       ("1.23456" since precision is taken to be 6).  When precision
+       is zero, the lower bound is 1 byte (e.g., "1").  Otherwise,
+       when precision is greater than zero, then the lower bound
+       is 2 plus precision (plus flags).  */
+    res.range.min = (flagmin
+             + (prec != INT_MIN)   /* for decimal point */
+             + (prec == INT_MIN
+                ? 0 : prec < 0 ? 6 : prec ? prec : -1));
Note for the future, nest/chained ternary operators can sometimes just
be hard to visually parse when they're squashed on a single line.
Formatting like this has often been used in the past to help clarify the
intent:

(flagmin
 + (prec != INT_MIN)
 + (prec == INT_MIN ? 0
    : prec < 0 ? 6
    : prec ? prec
    : -1)

Okay.


If we ignore the flagmin component, I get the following evaluations for
PREC.

PREC                       RESULT
INTMIN                       0
0                          0
negative (but not INTMIN)  7
positive                   prec + 1

That doesn't seem in-line with the comment.

Sorry, I think I need a hint.  Which part doesn't seem in line with
which part of the comment?  The numbers you have look correct to me
and I don't see anything wrong with the comment either.

Flagmin is always at least 1 and so RESULT above is 1 when precision
is used and either zero or unknown (because printf ("%.0f", 0) returns
1), and it's 8 when precision is negative because it's taken as if had
been omitted (i.e., it's 6 and printf ("%f", 0) formats "0.000000" and
returns 8), and it's prec + 2 when precision is positive because the 2
accounts for the leading "0." (when argument is zero) and precision is
the number of fractional digits.
So I think it's another case me mis-parsing the comment and conflating unknown vs unspecified in my mind I took the "plus flags" as applying to all cases, but re-reading it with the additional context you've provided, it seems like it actually applies to just the last case.

Try to give the comment a light respin to see if you can clarify. OK with that update.

Jeff


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]