[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3ab1a8cb-1df0-4345-e16e-d596bfd4ad82@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 17:10:02 +0100
From: Dennis Wölfing <denniswoelfing@....de>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Bugs in strftime
On 05.02.2018 18:51, Rich Felker wrote:
> I've actually discussed this before, being doubtful about whether the
> current behavior was correct, but was unable to find any authoritative
> interpretation. Do you know if there is one?
Unfortunately I don't know of any.
I don't think that the standard explicitly defines what "field" means.
However the standard also uses the term "minimum field width".
It would be weird to interpret the text in a way that "minimum field
width" refers to a different "field" than "the field being produced".
> Thanks again for doing this testing and reporting it. Would you be
> interested in helping get these tests into our libc-test package?
Sure. What do I need to do for that?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
