From:	sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
Message-Id:	<10209071525.AA16475@clio.rice.edu>
Subject:	Re: conversion specifiers and _doprnt
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Sat, 7 Sep 2002 10:25:51 -0500 (CDT)
In-Reply-To:	<AB6DAB53745@HRZ1.hrz.tu-darmstadt.de> from "Juan Manuel Guerrero" at Sep 04, 2002 12:06:57 PM
X-Mailer:	ELM [version 2.5 PL2]
Mime-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> The D und U specifiers are also mentioned in the libc docs.
> Am I missing somthing here? 
> Should these specifiers be removed (D,O,U)/added (F)?

I'm not sure of the origins of D,O,U - but they could be Microsoft or 
Borland compatibility, in which case we would want to keep them.  Just
because GCC warns doesn't mean we should break code ... especially when
we have documented the usage.

If there was a huge chunk of code implementing O I might consider 
removing it (ifdef) since it wasn't documented - just for size and 
maintenance.

- Raw text -