+
+// this test is only for our own implementation, the system implementation
+// doesn't always give errors for invalid format strings (e.g. glibc doesn't)
+// and as it's not required too (the behaviour is "undefined" according to the
+// spec), there is really no sense in testing for it (and the first 2 formats
+// in this test are not invalid at all in fact)
+#if wxUSE_WXVSNPRINTF
+
+void VsnprintfTestCase::WrongFormatStrings()
+{
+ // test how wxVsnprintf() behaves with wrong format string:
+
+ // NB: the next 2 tests currently return an error but they shouldn't,
+ // according to POSIX reusing the parameters is allowed
+
+ // two positionals with the same index:
+ r = wxSnprintf(buf, MAX_TEST_LEN, wxT("%1$s %1$s"), "hello");
+ CPPUNIT_ASSERT(r != -1);
+
+ // three positionals with the same index mixed with other pos args:
+ r = wxSnprintf(buf, MAX_TEST_LEN, wxT("%4$d %2$f %1$s %2$s %3$d"), "hello", "world", 3, 4);
+ CPPUNIT_ASSERT(r != -1);
+
+ // a missing positional arg: this should result in an error but not all
+ // implementations detect it (e.g. glibc doesn't)
+ r = wxSnprintf(buf, MAX_TEST_LEN, wxT("%1$d %3$d"), 1, 2, 3);
+ CPPUNIT_ASSERT_EQUAL(-1, r);
+
+ // positional and non-positionals in the same format string:
+ r = wxSnprintf(buf, MAX_TEST_LEN, wxT("%1$d %d %3$d"), 1, 2, 3);
+ CPPUNIT_ASSERT_EQUAL(-1, r);
+}
+
+#endif // wxUSE_WXVSNPRINTF
+