Re: [RFA] strftime: Add POSIX flags, width, and handling for E and O modifier

[Corinna Vinschen <vinschen at redhat dot com>]

On Feb 25 12:47, Jeff Johnston wrote:
> On 25/02/10 05:17 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >So the question is this.  Does it make sense to add another configure
> >option --enable-newlib-strftime-c99-formats?  If yes, ok, if not, I
> >would just add another option to sys/config.h and not call it _WANT_foo
> >but just, say , _C99_TIME_FORMATS.
> >
> 
> There is no problem with adding a WANT flag and not adding a
> configure option.  Assume platforms will want it on or off by
> default and we can deal with future requests as they come.  Most
> platforms will not care as they aren't using the new feature
> currently.  Those that are standard-conscious will turn it on
> regardless.
> 
> >I'm not so sure anymore about using the __POSIX_2008_STRFTIME__ flag for
> >the padding and width modifiers at all, though.
> >The code difference between enabling and disabling them isn't that much.
> >Without optimization, and without debug symbols, the size of the i386
> >object file grows by 5K in case
> >of the E and O modifier handling.  Disabling and enabling padding and
> >width only changes the size by less than 500 bytes.
> >
> >If you put that into relation to a file size of 9K for the strftime
> >function without E/O handling and 15K with, it seems to make not a lot
> >of sense to conditionalize that part of the code.  The strftime function
> >is already in it's basic form not really feasible for very small
> >targets.  I would opt for handling padding and width unconditionally.
> >
> 
> Ok.  I suggest for now, add a comment around the code so if we want
> to add a flag later, it will be easy.  Something simple like: /*
> POSIX 2008 feature */

Ok, I changed strftime accordingly.


Thanks,
Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen
Cygwin Project Co-Leader
Red Hat