Re: [PATCH v4 next 00/23] Enhance printf()

[David Laight]

On Sat, 7 Mar 2026 19:02:30 +0100
Thomas Weißschuh <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi David,
> 
> On 2026-03-02 10:17:52+0000, david.laight.linux@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > From: David Laight <david.laight.linux@xxxxxxxxx>  
> 
> (...)
> 
> I am happy with the patches of this series.
> 
> > David Laight (23):
> >   tools/nolibc: Add _NOLIBC_OPTIMIZER_HIDE_VAR() to compiler.h  
> 
> >   tools/nolibc/printf: Move snprintf length check to callback
> >   selftests/nolibc: Return correct value when printf test fails
> >   selftests/nolibc: check vsnprintf() output buffer before the length
> >   selftests/nolibc: Use length of 'expected' string to check snprintf() output
> >   selftests/nolibc: Check that snprintf() doesn't write beyond the buffer end
> >   selftests/nolibc: Let EXPECT_VFPRINTF() tests be skipped  
> 
> >   selftests/nolibc: Rename w to written in expect_vfprintf()  
> 
> Unfortunately b4 chokes on these patches because this patch is missing
> the 'v4' tag in the subject prefix.

I noticed that after sending them.
I add it by hand (there might be an easier way) but it is easy to
miss it when doing a final check/update of the patches.
I then sent them without a final-final check.

> Given that the one below needs some
> changes anyways, I was lazy and applied the series only up until here.
> (Patch 1 is also not applied, as there was no user yet for
> _NOLIBC_OPTIMIZER_HIDE_VAR() ).
> 
> Could you rebase the series on nolibc-next, add the error handling
> to strerror_r(), fix the wording nitpicks from Willy and resend the
> patches? I can also try to fix this up locally, but that would be more
> work on my side than it would be for you I reckon.
> Let me know if this is an issue and I'll try to make it work.

That shouldn't be too hard.
Was a right PITA moving them from linus's tree because --3way doesn't
work when the patches come from different git trees.
I'll just create a new branch, use 'git am' to apply each patch
then edit and amend.
Then recover all the info after the --- line.
I'm getting used to that sequence :-)

	David

> 
> Willy:
> 
> I interpreted your mail [0] as Acked-by for the whole series.
> 
> [0] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/aawDlqLdpgsfGI4r@xxxxxx/
> 
> >   tools/nolibc: Implement strerror() in terms of strerror_r()
> >   tools/nolibc: Rename the 'errnum' parameter to strerror()
> >   tools/nolibc/printf: Output pad characters in 16 byte chunks
> >   tools/nolibc/printf: Simplify __nolibc_printf()
> >   tools/nolibc/printf: Use goto and reduce indentation
> >   tools/nolibc/printf: Use bit-masks to hold requested  flag, length and conversion chars
> >   tools/nolibc/printf: Add support for length modifiers tzqL and formats iX
> >   tools/nolibc/printf: Handle "%s" with the numeric formats
> >   tools/nolibc/printf: Prepend sign to converted number
> >   tools/nolibc/printf: Add support for conversion flags space and plus
> >   tools/nolibc/printf: Special case 0 and add support for %#x
> >   tools/nolibc/printf: Add support for left aligning fields
> >   tools/nolibc/printf: Add support for zero padding and field precision
> >   tools/nolibc/printf: Add support for octal output
> >   selftests/nolibc: Use printf variable field widths and precisions
> > 
> >  tools/include/nolibc/compiler.h              |   3 +
> >  tools/include/nolibc/stdio.h                 | 501 ++++++++++++++-----
> >  tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c | 157 +++---
> >  3 files changed, 469 insertions(+), 192 deletions(-)