Mail Archives: djgpp/2000/12/22/07:58:18
Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> wrote:
> > Perhaps you could try my test program too, and tell if it does what
> > you expect it should?
>
> I get similar results to what you reported:
>
> Fri, 22 Dec 2000 09:53:58 +0000 GMT
> Fri, 22 Dec 2000 11:53:58 +7200 IST
> Thu, 21 Dec 2000 21:19:58 -0000 TEST1
> Fri, 22 Dec 2000 22:27:58 +38040 TEST2
>
> I.e., the issue with negative offsets is reproducible. But that's not
> what the original message was talking about, IIRC. The results in the
> original message were completely bogus, which I couldn't reproduce.
I think the original message talked about the GMT offsets printed by
%z being wrong. Athough the posted results appear to be cropped,
which doesn't help, and the expected results are not mentioned.
I don't know if Felix received the patch (because of a spam-blocked
reply address), so I don't know if or how the problem is fixed.
> The DJGPP
> library is much older than glibc, and doesn't yet support C99; the
> lack of support for %z is a minor nuisance compared to some major new
> functionality that C99 warrants but DJGPP doesn't support.
>
> Volunteers are welcome to work on adding C99 functionality to the
> library.
In respect of %z, what needs to be done to make strftime() compliant
with current standards?
> > Maybe you have a copy of the ANSI standard to check on this?
>
> It isn't mentioned at all in ANSI C89, which is what DJGPP supports.
> And the info in Posix doesn't tell anything about the units, as you
> cite above.
- Raw text -