On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 01:10:11PM -0500, mwoehlke wrote: >mwoehlke wrote: >>mwoehlke wrote: >>>I thought I'd have a crack at fixing the manpage for printf(3) (see >>>http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2006-08/msg00288.html), but when I opened >>>it, I was a bit shocked to discover that it is only *MARGINALLY* in >>>troff format. I do note that other manpages seem more "normal" (man1 >>>pages, for instance)... So, is this just "how the C lib manpages are"? >>> >>>I am not going to submit a "patch" on this mess. If I do anything with >>>it, I am going to submit a proper troff document. Given how much work >>>I would have to do to fix the existing page, I am much more inclined >>>to take my printf.3 from my Linux box and adjust it into consistency >>>with Cygwin's printf() instead. I'm willing to clean up the existing >>>manpage, but I think the style of the Linux manpage would be an >>>improvement (what we have looks like it came from HP-UX or something). >>> >>>Any opinions? >> >>Ok, no doubt this manpage needs to be overhauled. I am going from the >>Linux page and finding several omissions in the one currently in Cygwin >>("%F", as well as "%ll?"). >> >>WCTS, does anyone know to what extent locale stuff is supported? The >>"%'" modifier? "%*d", etc? "%$1d", etc? "%*1$d", etc? > >Ok, experimenting shows that all of the above EXCEPT "%'" are supported >(no great surprise). However, I also noticed that "%a", which is >required by C99, is not supported? > >I have a modified Linux manpage almost ready to go; I assume that goes >to cygwin.patches?
No, that would be appropriate only if the man page was found in the winsup hierarchy. The first line of printf(3) says "NEWLIB" when I type "man 3 printf" so that's where a man page patch should go. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/