Date:	Sun, 24 Dec 2000 07:43:05 +0200 (IST)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	Jason Green <news AT jgreen4 DOT fsnet DOT co DOT uk>
cc:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: strftime: Need Help with Time Offsets
In-Reply-To:	<0nt94tkh5ptfohe9414da1u3geja7ml4vm@4ax.com>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1001224073918.7747A-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Sat, 23 Dec 2000, Jason Green wrote:

> > But C99 defines about a dozen more conversion specifiers which aren't
> > supported by DJGPP right now.  It would be nice to add them as well.
> 
> I agree, but this all takes time.  If %z is fixed now shouldn't it go
> in?

I didn't say it shouldn't.  But fixing %z alone doesn't sound like a big 
win to me.  Also, the docs needs to be amended to describe %z.

> None of these seem particularly critical, at least no more so than %z.

Each one of them is not critical, but together they achieve a significant 
goal: making strftime C99-compatible.

> Which major new functionality from C99 are you refering to?

I meant all the other functions defined by C99 which we don't have.

> BTW, if I fill a struct tm with values for 0/Jan/YYYY, then call
> mktime(), it should be modified to 31/Dec/(YYYY-1), right?  This isn't
> happening.

Please post a complete example.

- Raw text -