From: "Juan Manuel Guerrero" <ST001906 AT HRZ1 DOT HRZ DOT TU-Darmstadt DOT De>
Organization: Darmstadt University of Technology
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 13:26:29 +0100
Subject: Re: conversion specifiers and _doprnt
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
References: <C1E45A8735D AT HRZ1 DOT hrz DOT tu-darmstadt DOT de>
In-reply-to: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1020919120639.867A-100000@is>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.54DE)
Message-ID: <C2036E8307E@HRZ1.hrz.tu-darmstadt.de>
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> > IIRC, libc implementation always prints NaN and Inf.
>
> Yes.  A change to that would require a simultaneous change to the Cygnus 
> test suite in djtstNNN.zip, though.
I will look at that too.

> > As Charles Sandman suggested some time ago, I have commented out (#if 0)
> > the O conversion specifier from the sources and retained unchanged everything
> > else to keep BORLAND/MSC compatibility.
>
> 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.

Regards,
Guerrero, Juan Manuel