From:	sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
Message-Id:	<10209191633.AA17484@clio.rice.edu>
Subject:	Re: conversion specifiers and _doprnt
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Thu, 19 Sep 2002 11:33:06 -0500 (CDT)
Cc:	eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il (Eli Zaretskii)
In-Reply-To:	<C2036E8307E@HRZ1.hrz.tu-darmstadt.de> from "Juan Manuel Guerrero" at Sep 19, 2002 01:26:29 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

> > Personally, I'd leave O alone.  I don't like removing existing 
> > functionality without a very good reason.
> It should be noticed that the O specifier is not documented at all in libc docs,
> so that average users should never have used this specifier. Because of this fact and
> that the option is not defined by the standard at all, I suggested to remove it.
> All this it not an inconveniece to me. I will activate the O specifier again.

I believe we should either document it or leave it as #if 0'ed - so leave it
like it is until the documentation is updated.  It would be excellent if we
could add a note to the documentation that these codes cause GCC warnings
but are present for (xxx) compatibility.  These codes were not documented
in BCC 3.0 (I checked last week), so it would be nice to know where they 
came from (more recent BCC? MSC?)

- Raw text -