Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 07:11:45 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Charles Sandmann <sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: conversion specifiers and _doprnt
In-Reply-To: <10209071525.AA16475@clio.rice.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1020919071021.27969F-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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


On Sat, 7 Sep 2002, Charles Sandmann wrote:

> > 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.

Yes, they are for compatibility with Borland (and probably also MSC, but 
I don't have the MSC references handy to check that).

> Just because GCC warns doesn't mean we should break code

Right.  Warnings can be turned off (or just ignored).