From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/12467 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: Bugs in strftime Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 12:30:20 -0500 Message-ID: <20180206173020.GA1220@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <52570ac7-4ba2-0c7a-04b8-c1c9727a5509@gmx.de> <20180205175124.GZ1627@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <3ab1a8cb-1df0-4345-e16e-d596bfd4ad82@gmx.de> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1517938182 7835 195.159.176.226 (6 Feb 2018 17:29:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 17:29:42 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-12483-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Tue Feb 06 18:29:38 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by blaine.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ej73S-0000bq-Uz for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Tue, 06 Feb 2018 18:29:15 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 26010 invoked by uid 550); 6 Feb 2018 17:31:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-ID: Original-Received: (qmail 24252 invoked from network); 6 Feb 2018 17:30:33 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3ab1a8cb-1df0-4345-e16e-d596bfd4ad82@gmx.de> Original-Sender: Rich Felker Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:12467 Archived-At: On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 05:10:02PM +0100, Dennis Wölfing wrote: > 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. OK, I guess the examples will have to suffice. > 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? The repo is here: http://nsz.repo.hu/git/?p=libc-test Patches for it are generally just sent to this list. Szabolcs Nagy is the maintainer. Rich