Bug in _scanf.c

[Pirmin Walthert]

On 04/02/2013 02:43 PM, Will Newton wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Pirmin Walthert <infos at nappsoft.com> wrote:
>
>> That's ok for me (as the most important thing is not to have a regression in
>> the next release) but in fact the first of the following patches would have
>> been enough to fix the bug. However the second patch would have been the
>> preferred one, as there would be a potential memory-leak without it (in case
>> of m modifier and sc.width > 0).
> Hi Pirmin,
>
> Thanks for finding this bug. Both these patches look ok to me,
> although I guess they should be resent with a Signed-off-by (e.g. from
> git format-patch).
Hi Will,

I've just submitted two patches (I've separated the second version of 
the two patches into two separate patches to address the two fixed bugs 
separately).

The reason why I didn't create a git-patch at the first is the 
following: sending just the proposed changes instead of a git-patch 
takes less time. And as I'd already sent a longer patch two weeks ago to 
address the same issue (after someone has asked me to do so because I'd 
only sent a diff before) and nobody seems to have had a look at it, I 
thought that it was not worth the time anyway ;)

Best regards,

Pirmin