Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 17:32:49 +0200 From: "Eli Zaretskii" Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il To: news AT jgreen4 DOT fsnet DOT co DOT uk Message-Id: <1190-Fri22Dec2000173248+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il> X-Mailer: Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.6 CC: djgpp AT delorie DOT com, ftilley AT azstarnet DOT com In-reply-to: (message from Jason Green on Fri, 22 Dec 2000 12:53:08 +0000) Subject: Re: strftime: Need Help with Time Offsets References: <1a524t0tk28cmv3vqfq26tooe0qeikhgm5 AT 4ax DOT com> <2561-Fri22Dec2000120234+0200-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk > From: Jason Green > Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 12:53:08 +0000 > > > > Perhaps you could try my test program too, and tell if it does what > > > you expect it should? > > > > I get similar results to what you reported: > > > > Fri, 22 Dec 2000 09:53:58 +0000 GMT > > Fri, 22 Dec 2000 11:53:58 +7200 IST > > Thu, 21 Dec 2000 21:19:58 -0000 TEST1 > > Fri, 22 Dec 2000 22:27:58 +38040 TEST2 > > > > I.e., the issue with negative offsets is reproducible. But that's not > > what the original message was talking about, IIRC. The results in the > > original message were completely bogus, which I couldn't reproduce. > > I think the original message talked about the GMT offsets printed by > %z being wrong. Yes, ``wrong'' a.k.a. ``bogus''. > In respect of %z, what needs to be done to make strftime() compliant > with current standards? It should work like in glibc. But C99 defines about a dozen more conversion specifiers which aren't supported by DJGPP right now. It would be nice to add them as well.