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

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

The following reply was made to PR bin/39135; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: christos%zoulas.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas)
To: gnats-bugs%NetBSD.org@localhost, gnats-admin%netbsd.org@localhost, 
netbsd-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost
Cc: 
Subject: Re: bin/39135: /usr/bin/awk: printf supports extra- (and broken) 
formatting rules
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 11:51:59 -0400

 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