A NOTE has been added to this issue. ====================================================================== https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1647 ====================================================================== Reported By: eblake Assigned To: ====================================================================== Project: 1003.1(2016/18)/Issue7+TC2 Issue ID: 1647 Category: System Interfaces Type: Clarification Requested Severity: Objection Priority: normal Status: Interpretation Required Name: Eric Blake Organization: Red Hat User Reference: ebb.printf %lc Section: fprintf Page Number: 913 Line Number: 30957 Interp Status: Proposed Final Accepted Text: https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1647#c6239 ====================================================================== Date Submitted: 2023-03-28 16:32 UTC Last Modified: 2023-06-26 09:56 UTC ====================================================================== Summary: printf("%lc", (wint_t)0) can't output NUL byte ====================================================================== Relationships ID Summary ---------------------------------------------------------------------- related to 0001643 fprintf %lc: wrong reference to the cur... ======================================================================
---------------------------------------------------------------------- (0006350) hvd (reporter) - 2023-06-26 09:56 https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1647#c6350 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Irrelevant, as there is nothing in the C17 description of those translation phases in 5.1.1.2 that would pull in the C17 requirements for the behaviour of printf() from 7.21.6.3. What library components do you think translation phase 8 is referring to, if not the components of the library as defined in section 7? That is what "library" means in the C standard; there is nothing else it could be referring to. An implementation that links in a printf() that conflicts with 7.21.6.3 doesn't implement translation phase 8 in the manner specified by the C standard, and therefore doesn't implement the c17 utility in the manner proposed for the next version of POSIX. > Non-sequitur. See above. > "POSIX-conforming application" is not the same as "Conforming POSIX Application"; Oh, at the start, you wrote "conforming application". This term is not actually defined anywhere, but is used elsewhere to mean "conforming POSIX application", not "POSIX-conforming application", see e.g. Rationale for Base Definitions. You're right, "POSIX-conforming application" does require that. Which doesn't change anything, as nothing in the specification of the c17 utility requires its inputs to be POSIX-conforming applications any more than it requires its inputs to be conforming POSIX applications. Issue History Date Modified Username Field Change ====================================================================== 2023-03-28 16:32 eblake New Issue 2023-03-28 16:32 eblake Name => Eric Blake 2023-03-28 16:32 eblake Organization => Red Hat 2023-03-28 16:32 eblake User Reference => ebb.printf %lc 2023-03-28 16:32 eblake Section => fprintf 2023-03-28 16:32 eblake Page Number => 913 2023-03-28 16:32 eblake Line Number => 30957 2023-03-28 16:32 eblake Interp Status => --- 2023-03-28 16:32 eblake Relationship added child of 0001643 2023-03-28 16:33 eblake Desired Action Updated 2023-03-28 17:02 eblake Desired Action Updated 2023-03-28 17:30 eblake Note Added: 0006237 2023-03-28 17:31 eblake Description Updated 2023-03-28 17:37 eblake Desired Action Updated 2023-03-30 16:33 eblake Note Added: 0006239 2023-03-30 17:14 eblake Tag Attached: tc3-2008 2023-03-30 17:14 eblake Tag Attached: issue8 2023-04-03 15:27 eblake Note Added: 0006246 2023-04-03 15:28 eblake Note Edited: 0006239 2023-04-03 15:28 geoffclare Tag Detached: tc3-2008 2023-04-03 15:31 ajosey Interp Status --- => Pending 2023-04-03 15:31 ajosey Final Accepted Text => https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1647#c6239 2023-04-03 15:31 ajosey Resolution Open => Accepted As Marked 2023-04-03 15:32 ajosey Status New => Interpretation Required 2023-04-03 16:31 ajosey Note Added: 0006248 2023-04-03 16:31 ajosey Status Interpretation Required => Resolution Proposed 2023-04-03 16:46 hvd Note Added: 0006251 2023-04-03 17:15 ajosey Interp Status Pending => Proposed 2023-04-03 17:15 ajosey Status Resolution Proposed => Interpretation Required 2023-04-20 16:22 geoffclare Relationship replaced related to 0001643 2023-06-23 16:19 geoffclare Note Added: 0006346 2023-06-23 16:45 hvd Note Added: 0006347 2023-06-26 09:25 geoffclare Note Added: 0006349 2023-06-26 09:56 hvd Note Added: 0006350 ======================================================================
