Re: bin/39135: /usr/bin/awk: printf supports extra- (and broken) formatting rules

[christos%zoulas.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas)]

On Jul 12, 12:35am, cheusov%tut.by@localhost (cheusov%tut.by@localhost) wrote:
-- Subject: bin/39135: /usr/bin/awk: printf supports extra- (and broken) form

| Rules are there 
| 
|   http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/awk.html
| 
|   "The printf statement shall produce output based on a notation
|   similar to the File Format Notation used to describe file formats in
|   this volume of IEEE Std 1003.1-2001 (see the Base Definitions volume
|   of IEEE Std 1003.1-2001, Chapter 5, File Format Notation).
|   ...
|   ...
|   "
| 
| This PR is again based on OpenBSD gnats
| 
|    http://cvs.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/query-pr-wrapper?full=yes&numbers=5523

But if you follow the link:

http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/basedefs/xbd_chap05.html

You'll see that there is no mention of the 'l' modifier, and OpenBSD
similarly closed the PR.

[11:49am] 8395>awk 'BEGIN { printf("%llx\n", 0xffffffffffLL); }'
40000000000
[11:49am] 8396>gawk 'BEGIN { printf("%llx\n", 0xffffffffffLL); }'
%llx

The question is should we completely remove support for %l, do a half-assed
job like we do now, by not handling long long, or fix %lld?

christos