Yes, it is likely that there might be issues about WEOF/EOF. Patches to improve this are welcome.
Regards, Kai 2016-02-25 12:29 GMT+01:00 Hannes Domani <ssb...@yahoo.de>: > Kai Tietz <ktiet...@googlemail.com> schrieb am 11:39 Donnerstag, 25.Februar > 2016: >> thank you for the patch. Nice catch. Patch is ok for apply. JonY >> will you take care? > > Great. > > I made some tests now to figure out why the wide-variant doesn't have the > same problem: > swscanf( L"1", L"%*u-" ); > > In mingw_wvfscanf.c there are 2 instances where EOF is used instead of WEOF > (I think that's wrong). > If I change those to WEOF as well, that same leak appears. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance > APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month > Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now > Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now! > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=272487151&iu=/4140 > _______________________________________________ > Mingw-w64-public mailing list > Mingw-w64-public@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-w64-public ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=272487151&iu=/4140 _______________________________________________ Mingw-w64-public mailing list Mingw-w64-public@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-w64-public
