This is the mail archive of the gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Incorrect warning about printf %0<fieldwidth>p format


It actually says (and I think this is clear):
 "If a  precision is given with a numeric conversion 
 (d, i, o, u, x, and X), the 0 flag is ignored.  For 
 other  conversions, the behavior is undefined."

We are not talking about *precision*, but *min field width*.
These are two different parts of the format.


On Thu, 2003-05-08 at 05:10, Falk Hueffner wrote:
> Jim Avera <jima@cadence.com> writes:
> 
> > Please explain.  The man text you quote says that the 0 flag has
> > undefined behavior for "other" conversions if a precision is
> > specified.
> 
> No. It clearly says "For other conversions, the behavior is
> undefined".
> 
> > In any case, the code is the truth: 
> 
> No. The standard is the truth, and I cited the standard.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]