[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#7325: new test failure due to non-portability of printf formats like
From: |
Pádraig Brady |
Subject: |
bug#7325: new test failure due to non-portability of printf formats like %05.3s |
Date: |
Sat, 06 Nov 2010 14:20:50 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3 |
On 06/11/10 02:54, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 11/04/2010 11:34 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> Pádraig Brady wrote:
>>> I still slightly prefer just using %.X as
>>> it's backwards compat with older coreutils (excluding 8.6).
>>
>> So do I.
>
> I built that and tried it out, and found another problem that has been
> annoying me for years in other programs: 'stat' prints out unnecessary
> trailing zeros for time stamps, when the file system resolution is
> coarser than nanosecond resolution. So I figured I'd fix that too,
> for 'stat' (other programs can be fixed later). With this fix, %.X
> outputs the time stamp but omits trailing zeros if it can infer that
> the file system would always put zeros there. If you want a specific
> number of zeros, you can use something like %.3X or %.9X (or %.100X :-).
Interesting. So it's variable precision by default
$ touch -d '1970-01-01 18:43:33.5000000000' 2; ~/git/t/coreutils/src/stat -c
"%.W %.X %.Y %.Z" 2
0.000000000 63813.500000000 63813.500000000 1289052572.699980883
$ touch -d '1970-01-01 18:43:33.5000000000' 2; ~/git/t/coreutils/src/stat -c
"%.W %.X %.Y %.Z" 2
0.00000000 63813.50000000 63813.50000000 1289052573.53698077
I like it.
BTW you dropped a blank line at the end of the NEWS section.
cheers,
Pádraig.
p.s. I'm marking this bug as done
- bug#7325: new test failure due to non-portability of printf formats like %05.3s, (continued)
- bug#7325: new test failure due to non-portability of printf formats like %05.3s, Jim Meyering, 2010/11/04
- bug#7325: new test failure due to non-portability of printf formats like %05.3s, Paul Eggert, 2010/11/04
- bug#7325: new test failure due to non-portability of printf formats like %05.3s, Jim Meyering, 2010/11/04
- bug#7325: new test failure due to non-portability of printf formats like %05.3s, Jim Meyering, 2010/11/05
- bug#7325: new test failure due to non-portability of printf formats like %05.3s, Paul Eggert, 2010/11/05
- bug#7325: new test failure due to non-portability of printf formats like %05.3s, Pádraig Brady, 2010/11/04
- bug#7325: new test failure due to non-portability of printf formats like %05.3s, Jim Meyering, 2010/11/05
- bug#7325: new test failure due to non-portability of printf formats like %05.3s, Paul Eggert, 2010/11/05
- bug#7325: new test failure due to non-portability of printf formats like %05.3s, Jim Meyering, 2010/11/06
- bug#7325: new test failure due to non-portability of printf formats like %05.3s, Jim Meyering, 2010/11/06
- bug#7325: new test failure due to non-portability of printf formats like %05.3s,
Pádraig Brady <=
- bug#7325: new test failure due to non-portability of printf formats like %05.3s, Pádraig Brady, 2010/11/08
- bug#7325: new test failure due to non-portability of printf formats like %05.3s, Jim Meyering, 2010/11/08
- bug#7325: new test failure due to non-portability of printf formats like %05.3s, Pádraig Brady, 2010/11/08
- bug#7325: new test failure due to non-portability of printf formats like %05.3s, Jim Meyering, 2010/11/08
- bug#7325: new test failure due to non-portability of printf formats like %05.3s, Eric Blake, 2010/11/08
- bug#7325: new test failure due to non-portability of printf formats like %05.3s, Paul Eggert, 2010/11/08
- bug#7325: new test failure due to non-portability of printf formats like %05.3s, Jim Meyering, 2010/11/09
- bug#7325: new test failure due to non-portability of printf formats like %05.3s, Jim Meyering, 2010/11/10
- bug#7325: new test failure due to non-portability of printf formats like %05.3s, Paul Eggert, 2010/11/11
- bug#7325: new test failure due to non-portability of printf formats like %05.3s, Jim Meyering, 2010/11/11