Openwall GNU/*/Linux - a small security-enhanced Linux distro for servers
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 17:10:02 +0100
From: Dennis W├Âlfing <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

Your e-mail address:

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux - Powered by OpenVZ