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: from "Juan Manuel Guerrero" at Sep 04, 2002 12:06:57 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 Precedence: bulk > 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.