Hi Vincent,
On 5/20/22 18:11, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
Why "in C99"?
According to GCC with "-Wformat -pedantic", this is new in C99:
warning: ISO C90 does not support the ‘%le’ gnu_printf format
Ok.
The printf(3) man page already mentions features that appeared in
C99. For instance: "a, A (C99; not in SUSv2, but added in SUSv3)"
That's why I mentioned that for consistency.
I could also check that this is not in SUSv2:
https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/7990989775/xsh/fprintf.html
Perhaps this should be rephrased. Something like:
On a following a, A, e, E, f, F, g, or G conversion, this
length modifier is ignored (C99; not in SUSv2). >
What do you think?
Makes sense. Since SUSv3 should be identical to POSIX.2001, which
itself should be aligned with C99 (see standards(7)), we can just ignore
it, or we can add it if you want.
I don't know about SUSv3 (I could just see that this feature was
also supported in POSIX:2004).
Please send a new patch.
Thanks,
Alex
--
Alejandro Colomar
Linux man-pages comaintainer; https://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
http://www.alejandro-colomar.es/
