Add tests for sprintf and fprintf in fail_compilation/chkformat.d

[Luhrel]

Blocked by dlang/druntime#2972

[dlang-bot]

Thanks for your pull request and interest in making D better, @Luhrel! We are looking forward to reviewing it, and you should be hearing from a maintainer soon.
Please verify that your PR follows this checklist:

• My PR is fully covered with tests (you can see the coverage diff by visiting the details link of the codecov check)
• My PR is as minimal as possible (smaller, focused PRs are easier to review than big ones)
• I have provided a detailed rationale explaining my changes
• New or modified functions have Ddoc comments (with Params: and Returns:)

Please see CONTRIBUTING.md for more information.

---

If you have addressed all reviews or aren't sure how to proceed, don't hesitate to ping us with a simple comment.

Bugzilla references

Your PR doesn't reference any Bugzilla issue.

If your PR contains non-trivial changes, please reference a Bugzilla issue or create a manual changelog.

Testing this PR locally

If you don't have a local development environment setup, you can use Digger to test this PR:

dub run digger -- build "master + dmd#10872"

[Luhrel]

Can now be merged.

[thewilsonator]

dhry.d(629): Deprecation: format specifier `"%7.1lf"` is invalid
dhry.d(631): Deprecation: format specifier `"%10.1lf"` is invalid
dhry.d(632): Deprecation: format specifier `"%10.3lf"` is invalid
dhry.d(637): Deprecation: width argument `& Reg_Define` for format specification `"%*s"` must be `int`, not `char*`
dhry.d(637): Deprecation: more format specifiers than 1 arguments
Error: unknown, please file report on issues.dlang.org
dhry.d(638): Deprecation: format specifier `"%7.1lf"` is invalid
dhry.d(639): Deprecation: format specifier `"%10.1lf"` is invalid
dhry.d(640): Deprecation: format specifier `"%10.3lf"` is invalid

[MoonlightSentinel]

That's already present in master, see https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20645

[Luhrel]

dhry.d(629): Deprecation: format specifier `"%7.1lf"` is invalid
dhry.d(631): Deprecation: format specifier `"%10.1lf"` is invalid
dhry.d(632): Deprecation: format specifier `"%10.3lf"` is invalid
dhry.d(637): Deprecation: width argument `& Reg_Define` for format specification `"%*s"` must be `int`, not `char*`
dhry.d(637): Deprecation: more format specifiers than 1 arguments
Error: unknown, please file report on issues.dlang.org
dhry.d(638): Deprecation: format specifier `"%7.1lf"` is invalid
dhry.d(639): Deprecation: format specifier `"%10.1lf"` is invalid
dhry.d(640): Deprecation: format specifier `"%10.3lf"` is invalid

Somehow, I don't get any error on my system:

$ test/run.d runnable/dhry.d
unit_test_runner is already up-to-date
d_do_test is already up-to-date
sanitize_json is already up-to-date
dshell_prebuilt is already up-to-date
 ... runnable/dhry.d                -release -O -g -inline  -fPIC ()

Which command did you run ?

[Luhrel]

Can someone re-run the auto-tester and buildkite ?
It should be ready to merge.

[MoonlightSentinel]

Please give this a force push to trigger the auto-tester

[thewilsonator]

@MoonlightSentinel You can restart individual auto-tees by clicking on the Run ID column, and then clicking on deprecate on the Deleted row. Alternatively when all of the tests are delete (on the main screen) just add auto-merge and it will prioritise that PR.

[MoonlightSentinel]

Thanks @thewilsonator but I don't seem to have the permission to restart single jobs (there is no deprecate button for me).

[thewilsonator]

You nee to log in, see the top left corner.

[MoonlightSentinel]

Nevermind, I was already logged in but only looked at already deleted runs.

[thewilsonator]

std\math.d(246): Deprecation: argument `cast(double)x` for format specification `"%.*Lg"` must be `real`, not `double`
std\math.d(247): Deprecation: argument `cast(double)y` for format specification `"%.*Lg"` must be `real`, not `double`

[WalterBright]

Allow double type for Lg format specifier

PLEASE follow the SPECIFICATION, do not make up rules. C99 7.19.6.1.7 says "L Specifies that a following a, A, e, E, f, F, g, or G conversion specifier applies to a long double argument."

Not a double. A long double, i.e. real.

Please also defer to the actual Standard, not some web site that rewrote it (to avoid copyright infringement concerns) and got it wrong.

Refactorings must not change behavior, either.

[Luhrel]

Allow double type for Lg format specifier

PLEASE follow the SPECIFICATION, do not make up rules. C99 7.19.6.1.7 says "L Specifies that a following a, A, e, E, f, F, g, or G conversion specifier applies to a long double argument."

Not a double. A long double, i.e. real.

Please also defer to the actual Standard, not some web site that rewrote it (to avoid copyright infringement concerns) and got it wrong.

Refactorings must not change behavior, either.

In your changelog, you said:

For printf, it takes a generous, rather than strict, view of compatiblity.

[WalterBright]

Unfortunately, there is no way a 10 byte real is binary compatible with an 8 byte double.

Besides, and I cannot over-emphasize this, refactorings MUST NOT INCLUDE BUG FIXES OR BEHAVIOR CHANGES.

[MoonlightSentinel]

Is this still useful given pragma(printf)?

[Luhrel]

Is this still useful given pragma(printf)?

As Walter did all the work, this PR is very trivial now.

I close it. Feel free to reopen it if you really want to.