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.