View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0000932 | 1003.1(2013)/Issue7+TC1 | Shell and Utilities | public | 2015-03-17 11:42 | 2019-06-10 08:54 |
| Reporter | geoffclare | Assigned To | |||
| Priority | normal | Severity | Objection | Type | Omission |
| Status | Closed | Resolution | Accepted | ||
| Name | Geoff Clare | ||||
| Organization | The Open Group | ||||
| User Reference | |||||
| Section | printf | ||||
| Page Number | 3076 | ||||
| Line Number | 102558 | ||||
| Interp Status | Approved | ||||
| Final Accepted Text | See 0000932:0002661. | ||||
| Summary | 0000932: behaviour of printf %b with no operand is not specified | ||||
| Description | List item 9 on the printf utility page says that extra c or s conversion specifiers are evaluated as if a null string argument were supplied, and other extra conversion specifications are evaluated as if a zero argument were supplied. This is part of a list of exceptions to the format string requirements in chapter 5 which has no %b conversion, and this therefore does not cover %b. The additional %b conversion is described in list item 7 but this description does not specify what happens for a %b with no corresponding operand. Although the suggested change would place an additional requirement on implementations, I believe that the omission is unintentional and so should be treated as a defect to be corrected in TC2 rather than an enhancement to be added in Issue 8. | ||||
| Desired Action | Change from: Any extra <tt>c</tt> or <tt>s</tt> conversion specifiers to: Any extra <tt>b</tt>, <tt>c</tt> or <tt>s</tt> conversion specifiers | ||||
| Tags | tc2-2008 | ||||
| duplicate of | 0000727 | Closed | Missing %b mention in printf utility remark about errors |
|
|
Interpretation response ------------------------ The standard does not speak to this issue, and as such no conformance distinction can be made between alternative implementations based on this. This is being referred to the sponsor. Rationale: ------------- This appears to be an oversight in the standard. All known implementations are believed to already behave as desired action. Notes to the Editor (not part of this interpretation): ------------------------------------------------------- Make the changes suggested in the Desired Action. |
|
|
Interpretation proposed 8 May 2015 |
|
|
Interpretation approved: 10 June 2015 |
|
|
This is a duplicate of 0000727, but since it is an approved interpretation (whereas 727 is not), I have just added the relationship rather than closing it as a duplicate. I propose to list both bug IDs against this change in TC2. |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2015-03-17 11:42 | geoffclare | New Issue | |
| 2015-03-17 11:42 | geoffclare | Name | => Geoff Clare |
| 2015-03-17 11:42 | geoffclare | Organization | => The Open Group |
| 2015-03-17 11:42 | geoffclare | Section | => printf |
| 2015-03-17 11:42 | geoffclare | Page Number | => 3076 |
| 2015-03-17 11:42 | geoffclare | Line Number | => 102558 |
| 2015-03-17 11:42 | geoffclare | Interp Status | => --- |
| 2015-05-07 16:27 | Don Cragun | Interp Status | --- => Pending |
| 2015-05-07 16:27 | Don Cragun | Note Added: 0002661 | |
| 2015-05-07 16:27 | Don Cragun | Status | New => Interpretation Required |
| 2015-05-07 16:27 | Don Cragun | Resolution | Open => Accepted |
| 2015-05-07 16:27 | Don Cragun | Final Accepted Text | => See 0000932:0002661. |
| 2015-05-07 16:29 | Don Cragun | Note Edited: 0002661 | |
| 2015-05-07 16:29 | Don Cragun | Tag Attached: tc2-2008 | |
| 2015-05-08 12:08 | ajosey | Interp Status | Pending => Proposed |
| 2015-05-08 12:08 | ajosey | Note Added: 0002663 | |
| 2015-06-10 08:35 | ajosey | Interp Status | Proposed => Approved |
| 2015-06-10 08:35 | ajosey | Note Added: 0002702 | |
| 2015-06-22 15:31 | geoffclare | Relationship added | duplicate of 0000727 |
| 2015-06-22 15:33 | geoffclare | Note Added: 0002729 | |
| 2019-06-10 08:54 | agadmin | Status | Interpretation Required => Closed |
