Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 10:15:23 +0300
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Message-Id: <8011-Wed07May2003101523+0300-eliz@elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: emacs 21.3.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
In-reply-to: <200305061806.h46I6L4T020189@envy.delorie.com> (message from DJ
	Delorie on Tue, 6 May 2003 14:06:21 -0400)
Subject: Re: djtar and slightly weirdly formatted ZIPs, revision 2 [PATCH]
References: <E19Bvwx-0000zi-00 AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk> <Pine DOT OSF DOT 4 DOT 51 DOT 0305061421140 DOT 24402 AT sirppi DOT helsinki DOT fi> <2950-Tue06May2003201426+0300-eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il> <200305061806 DOT h46I6L4T020189 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
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

> Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 14:06:21 -0400
> From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
> 
> > > These bytes should be printed with "%02x", not "%x" (else 0x0f0f will be
> > > printed as 0xff)
> > 
> > Don't you mean %2.2x?
> 
> No, that sets the width, but doesn't force leading zeros.  You'd end
> up with "0x f f".

AFAIK, with integer numbers, if you force a certain number of digits,
you get leading zeros.

Anyway, I've just tried this, and both methods produce "0f", so they
seem to be equivalent in this context.