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
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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
Precedence: bulk


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.