From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/13787
Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Alexey Izbyshev <izbyshev@ispras.ru>
Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general
Subject: Re: Bug in gets function?
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 02:19:09 +0300
Message-ID: <216fbc9c9c54d99f043cda3ef11cf145@ispras.ru>
References: <CABU-nVQmDvX2v_3V2ZJhvkBGrKgjBK0XRkejGVsKDU8ooYJ30A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190212034838.GH23599@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
 <20190212035106.GI23599@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
 <CAEfvv4+Jn8DMFrtQ9ow-smrXg3rjhz7X5vOaCrVzR4W1=bKcRA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOL8xrVgOyC=9SnOfgsfU6M2uHe491SdDZM+ePAxD_eeSVArbQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190212163027.GK23599@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
 <419e95bb3a69fa0990e56996e198355f@ispras.ru>
 <20190213221330.GR23599@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226";
	logging-data="970"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org"
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.1.2
Cc: Rich Felker <dalias@aerifal.cx>
To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Original-X-From: musl-return-13803-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Thu Feb 14 00:19:24 2019
Return-path: <musl-return-13803-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com>
Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org
Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200])
	by blaine.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.89)
	(envelope-from <musl-return-13803-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com>)
	id 1gu3oJ-0000AC-Nl
	for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 00:19:23 +0100
Original-Received: (qmail 11882 invoked by uid 550); 13 Feb 2019 23:19:21 -0000
Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:musl@lists.openwall.com>
List-Help: <mailto:musl-help@lists.openwall.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:musl-unsubscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:musl-subscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-ID: <musl.lists.openwall.com>
Original-Received: (qmail 11860 invoked from network); 13 Feb 2019 23:19:21 -0000
In-Reply-To: <20190213221330.GR23599@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
X-Sender: izbyshev@ispras.ru
Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:13787
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/13787>

On 2019-02-14 01:13, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 12:39:07AM +0300, Alexey Izbyshev wrote:
>> On 2019-02-12 19:30, Rich Felker wrote:
>> >Here's an alternate proposal via direct implementation:
>> >
>> >char *gets(char *s)
>> >{
>> >	size_t i=0;
>> >	int c;
>> >	FLOCK(stdin);
>> >	while ((c=getc_unlocked(stdin)) != EOF && c != '\n') s[i++] = c;
>> >	s[i] = 0;
>> >	if (c != '\n' && !feof(stdin)) s = 0;
>> >	FUNLOCK(stdin);
>> >	return s;
>> >}
>> >
>> >Does this look ok? Of course it's slow compared to a fgets-like
>> >operation on the buffer, but gets is not a usable interface and I
>> >don't see any reason to care whether it's fast.
>> >
>> gets() must also return NULL if EOF is reached and no bytes were read.
> 
> So if (c != '\n' && (!feof(stdin) || !i)) ?
> 
Yes, looks good.

Alexey