Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 09:53:36 -0400
From: Rich Felker <>
To: Masanori Ogino <>,,
Subject: Re: Re: [bug-gettext] AM_GNU_GETTEXT without referring
 internal symbols?

On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 12:57:47PM +0200, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> * Masanori Ogino <> [2016-04-07 16:12:39 +0900]:
> > 2016-04-07 15:26 GMT+09:00 Rich Felker <>:
> > > I'm not sure what the %Id thing you're referring to is; can you point
> > > me to a description of it?
> > 
> > %Id is essentially an extension of printf(3) in glibc 2.2 and later.
> > It can be implemented by the same way as how sysdep is implemented; it
> > just depends on the current locale, not the ABI.
> > 
> > Search by "glibc
> > 2.2 adds" for details.
> i think it is not acceptable that glibc introduces
> extensions that can collide with future versions of
> the c and posix standards.
> but it is even worse if a translation file format
> depends on such extensions which makes it hard to
> fix the problem once the collision happens
> (like it happened with scanf %a).
> there are other problems with this flag, so gettext
> manual should recommend some other solution.

In that case this has nothing to do with gettext capabilities; gettext
does not process format strings but simply translates one format
strign to another, and if a program is using non-portable format
strings, it's going to break whether it's using gettext or not. So I
don't think it's relevant to this discussion of whether _gettext_ is


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.