On 09/02/13 16:41, Christopher Hall wrote:
> The printf(3) manpage says that a negative precision is taken to be
> zero, whereas printf(3p) says that a negative precision is taken as if
> the precision were omitted. glibc agrees with the latter (posix)
> specification.
>
> Test code:
>
> printf("%f\n",42.0); // "42.000000"
> printf("%.*f\n",0,42.0); // "42"
> printf("%.*f\n",-1,42.0); // "42.000000"
>
> This patch corrects the explanation to match what actually happens.
Thanks for the thorough and clear report, Chris. Patch applied.
Cheers,
Michael
> diff --git i/man3/printf.3 w/man3/printf.3
> index f5e96d3..2c86bf1 100644
> --- i/man3/printf.3
> +++ w/man3/printf.3
> @@ -409,8 +409,9 @@ Instead of a decimal digit string one may write
> "*" or "*mquot;
> is given in the next argument, or in the m-th argument, respectively,
> which must be of type
> .IR int .
> -If the precision is given as just \(aq.\(aq, or the precision is negative,
> -the precision is taken to be zero.
> +If the precision is given as just \(aq.\(aq, the precision is taken to
> +be zero. A negative precision is taken as if the precision were
> +omitted.
> This gives the minimum number of digits to appear for
> .BR d ,
> .BR i ,
>
>
> --
> Chris Hall
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
