This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc 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: vfprintf typing problem

From: David Miller <davem at davemloft dot net>
To: roland at hack dot frob dot com
Cc: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 19:26:04 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: vfprintf typing problem
References: <20120328.180010.1231759572763962530.davem@davemloft.net><20120328222524.5F8D02C0A3@topped-with-meat.com>

From: Roland McGrath <roland@hack.frob.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 15:25:24 -0700 (PDT)

> In the C standard (C99 and C11), I don't see anything that says anything
> one way or another about the valid range of field width specifiers when
> they appear directly in the format string.

See the comments in the glibc bug #5424 fixed by bug22.c, it
references:

http://www.opengroup.org/platform/resolutions/bwg98-006.html

and also recent POSIX drafts.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: vfprintf typing problem
  - From: Roland McGrath
- Re: vfprintf typing problem
  - From: David Miller

References:
- vfprintf typing problem
  - From: David Miller
- Re: vfprintf typing problem
  - From: Roland McGrath

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