Den 2011-05-11 19:34 skrev Corinna Vinschen: > On May 11 16:52, Peter Rosin wrote: >> Hello! >> >> The following STC hints at a problem in strptime: ... >> Opengroup has this to say about only filling in some fields: >> >> "It is unspecified whether multiple calls to strptime() >> using the same tm structure will update the current >> contents of the structure or overwrite all contents of >> the structure. Conforming applications should make a >> single call to strptime() with a format and all data >> needed to completely specify the date and time being >> converted." >> >> but I don't think it applies since indeed I do completely specify >> the date in my strptime call. > > The Cygwin implementation of strptime is taken from NetBSD and enhanced > only in terms of support for the E and O modifiers. The NetBSD and > OpenBSD versions also support a non-POSIX format specifier %u (day of > week, monday = 1). Other than that, the Cygwin strptime behaves exactly > as the BSD implementation. tm_wday is only set if you specify %a, %A or > %w. tm_yday is only set if you specify %j. > > Despite the example in the strptime man page of POSIX.1-2008, POSIX does > not specify that strptime has to fill out tm fields which are not also > specified in the format string. You should better memset the tm > structure to 0 before calling strptime.
Since you pulled out your "POSIX does not require it" card, I'm grasping for my "Cygwin should behave like Linux" card. :-) Seriously, of course I need to handle quirks in strptime if I want the users of my application to be happy, but that does not mean that strptime can't be a little bit more helpful on Cygwin. Maybe someone with a copyright assignment can find some inspiration in the patch [1] I sent for the newlib strptime? Cheers, Peter [1] http://sourceware.org/ml/newlib/2011/msg00177.html -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
