Micah Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Simon Josefsson wrote: >>>> http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/strftime.html >>>> >>>> that specifier was not part of SUS. >>> Um, I see it on that page, don't you? >> >> Yes, so that makes it part of POSIX. Further down on that page, though, >> it says that it wasn't part of SUS. > > No, further on down the page, it says it was added to POSIX to align it > _with_ SUS. In any case, it's obviously now part of both, so calling it > "non-SUS" strikes me as misleading. (AFAICT there is currently nothing > in POSIX that is not also in SUS: that's why there are inclusion > qualifiers to mark something as SUS but not POSIX (XSI), but not vice > versa.)
Oops! You are right. How about the following text? (pushed) Portability problems not fixed by Gnulib: @itemize @item The Windows C runtime library (which is used by MinGW) does not support the %e specifier (and possibly the other more recent SUS specifiers too, i.e., %C, %D, %h, %n, %r, %R, %t, and %T). @end itemize /Simon
