On Mon, Jan 21, 2019, at 5:11 PM, Tim Rühsen wrote: > On 1/21/19 5:00 PM, Hugo Beauzée-Luyssen wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 21, 2019, at 4:58 PM, Tim Rühsen wrote: > >> On 1/8/19 2:22 PM, Hugo Beauzée-Luyssen wrote: > >>> On Thu, Dec 20, 2018, at 2:53 AM, Bruno Haible wrote: > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> Hugo Beauzée-Luyssen wrote: > >>>>> 12-14 19:10:02.633 F DEBUG : pid: 31664, tid: 32389, name: VlcObject > >>>>> >>> org.videolan.vlc <<< > >>>>> 12-14 19:10:02.633 F DEBUG : signal 6 (SIGABRT), code -1 (SI_QUEUE), > >>>>> fault addr -------- > >>>>> 12-14 19:10:02.633 F DEBUG : Abort message: 'FORTIFY: %n not allowed > >>>>> on Android' > >>>> > >>>> Indeed, %n in *printf is not allowed on Android, see > >>>> https://android.googlesource.com/platform/bionic/+/master/libc/stdio/vfprintf.cpp > >>>> https://android.googlesource.com/platform/bionic/+/master/docs/status.md > >>>> > >>>>> diff --git a/lib/vasnprintf.c b/lib/vasnprintf.c > >>>>> index af3fcd1c7..e41d5f706 100644 > >>>>> --- a/lib/vasnprintf.c > >>>>> +++ b/lib/vasnprintf.c > >>>>> @@ -4874,7 +4874,8 @@ VASNPRINTF (DCHAR_T *resultbuf, size_t *lengthp, > >>>>> # if ! (((__GLIBC__ > 2 || (__GLIBC__ == 2 && __GLIBC_MINOR__ >= 3)) > >>>>> \ > >>>>> && !defined __UCLIBC__) > >>>>> \ > >>>>> || (defined __APPLE__ && defined __MACH__) > >>>>> \ > >>>>> - || (defined _WIN32 && ! defined __CYGWIN__)) > >>>>> + || (defined _WIN32 && ! defined __CYGWIN__) > >>>>> \ > >>>>> + || defined __ANDROID__) > >>>>> fbp[1] = '%'; > >>>>> fbp[2] = 'n'; > >>>>> fbp[3] = '\0'; > >>>> > >>>> The patch looks good at first sight. But when you look at the comments a > >>>> couple of lines before it, you see that one can avoid %n only > >>>> if snprintf behaves well enough. To this effect, can you please report > >>>> the configure results (from a *native* Android compilation, not a cross- > >>>> compilation) of these tests: > >>>> > >>>> 1 = checking whether printf supports size specifiers as in C99... > >>>> 2 = checking whether printf supports 'long double' arguments... > >>>> 3 = checking whether printf supports infinite 'double' arguments... > >>>> 4 = checking whether printf supports infinite 'long double' arguments... > >>>> 5 = checking whether printf supports the 'a' and 'A' directives... > >>>> 6 = checking whether printf supports the 'F' directive... > >>>> 7 = checking whether printf supports the 'n' directive... > >>>> 8 = checking whether printf supports the 'ls' directive... > >>>> 9 = checking whether printf supports POSIX/XSI format strings with > >>>> positions... > >>>> 10 = checking whether printf supports the grouping flag... > >>>> 11 = checking whether printf supports the left-adjust flag correctly... > >>>> 12 = checking whether printf supports the zero flag correctly... > >>>> 13 = checking whether printf supports large precisions... > >>>> 14 = checking whether printf survives out-of-memory conditions... > >>>> 15 = checking for snprintf... > >>>> 16 = checking whether snprintf truncates the result as in C99... > >>>> 17 = checking whether snprintf returns a byte count as in C99... > >>>> 18 = checking whether snprintf fully supports the 'n' directive... > >>>> 19 = checking whether snprintf respects a size of 1... > >>>> 20 = checking whether vsnprintf respects a zero size as in C99... > >>>> > >>>> You should find these in the configure output of any package that > >>>> uses gnulib's 'vasnprintf' module. If you don't have one at hand, > >>>> create one using > >>>> ./gnulib-tool --create-testdir --dir=testdir --single-configure > >>>> vasnprintf > >>>> > >>>> Thanks. > >>>> > >>>> Bruno > >>>> > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> I'm probably missing something, but for me this only seems to test for > >>> snprintf/printf/vasnprintf availability (including running configure in > >>> the generated test directory) > >> > >> I would really like to see the patch in gnulib as soon as possible. > >> > >> @hugo If it's not too much hassle, could you please provide the > >> requested information ? > >> > >> Regards, Tim > >> > > > > Hi, > > > > I'd love to, but I failed to fetch those so far. The provided command line > > didn't return any valuable information, and simply tested for the presence > > of various printf family function. > > > > Regards, > > So you cd'ed into testdir and run `./configure` !? >
Yes > I also don't see much here (Debian unstable): > > $ grep -A1 -i 'checking.*printf' config.log > configure:6305: checking for vasnprintf > configure:6305: result: no > configure:6305: checking for snprintf > configure:6305: result: yes > -- > configure:8450: checking whether snprintf returns a byte count as in C99 > configure:8548: result: yes > configure:8559: checking for snprintf > configure:8559: result: yes > -- > configure:8568: checking whether _snprintf is declared > configure:8568: result: no > > What does that grep look for you ? $ grep -A1 'checking .*printf' config.log configure:6326: checking for vasnprintf configure:6326: gcc -o conftest -g -O2 conftest.c >&5 -- configure:6326: checking for snprintf configure:6326: gcc -o conftest -g -O2 conftest.c >&5 -- configure:8471: checking whether snprintf returns a byte count as in C99 configure:8558: gcc -o conftest -g -O2 conftest.c >&5 -- configure:8580: checking for snprintf configure:8580: result: yes -- configure:8589: checking whether _snprintf is declared configure:8589: gcc -c -g -O2 conftest.c >&5 FWIW, I ran the test using termux on a chromebook, since that's the only way I know of doing a native android compile (beside cross compiling an android compiler, but I'd like to avoid having doing that if possible) > > @Bruno Is there something missing ? > > Regards, Tim > > Email had 1 attachment: > + signature.asc > 1k (application/pgp-signature) -- Hugo Beauzée-Luyssen h...@beauzee.fr
