[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: |
Jim Meyering |
Subject: |
bug#7325: new test failure due to non-portability of printf formats like %05.3s |
Date: |
Thu, 04 Nov 2010 21:42:29 +0100 |
Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 11/04/10 00:56, Jim Meyering wrote:
>
>> However, what about Eric's example?
>>
>> $ src/stat-p -c '_%-0 010.4:X_' k # yours
>> _234 _
>> $ src/stat-j -c '_%-0 010.4:X_' k # mine
>> _0234 _
>
> That's simply an issue of whether the value is considered to be signed
> or unsigned, and can be fixed by the patch at the end of this message.
>
> However, let me take a step back a minute. Do users really want all
> this functionality? Personally, what I'd like to see is a single
> format like this:
>
> %.3X
>
> that prints out the entire seconds since the Epoch, truncated
> to millseconds. That's simpler than what we require now:
>
> %X.%.3:X
>
> The changelogs suggest that we used to do things the simpler way,
> but changed on Oct. 21. I don't recall this being discussed: I
It was due to portability concerns, since with coreutils-8.6,
%X, %Y, etc. expanded to floating point values, and that broke
backwards compatibility:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.coreutils.general/161/focus=366
However, enabling floating point output only when there is a ".PREC"
part of the format sounds like a fine compromise.
Sure, old scripts that used %.3X (expecting no ".") would break,
but I doubt any such uses exist, since that notation did nothing useful.
A patch would be most welcome.
> assume it was due to floating point rounding issues. Still, I'd
> prefer the simpler notation, and we should be able to implement it
> without floating point. Would that be OK? The idea would be
> to support ".PRECISION" in the formats for W, X, Y, and Z, and
> to drop support for ':W' and the like.
- bug#7325: new test failure due to non-portability of printf formats like %05.3s, Jim Meyering, 2010/11/03
- bug#7325: new test failure due to non-portability of printf formats like %05.3s, Eric Blake, 2010/11/03
- bug#7325: new test failure due to non-portability of printf formats like %05.3s, Jim Meyering, 2010/11/03
- bug#7325: new test failure due to non-portability of printf formats like %05.3s, Eric Blake, 2010/11/03
- bug#7325: new test failure due to non-portability of printf formats like %05.3s, Paul Eggert, 2010/11/03
- 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, 2010/11/04
- 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 <=
- 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, 2010/11/06
- 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