[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
strftime and `-' (no-pad) directive has no effect on %e
From: |
Jim Meyering |
Subject: |
strftime and `-' (no-pad) directive has no effect on %e |
Date: |
Sun, 11 May 2003 17:15:43 +0200 |
I've just noticed that strftime's `-' (no-pad) directive has no effect on %e,
yet the `0' (zero-pad) directive does.
$ date --date=2003-05-01 +%e
1
$ date --date=2003-05-01 +%0e
01
$ date --date=2003-05-01 +%-e
1
Shouldn't `-' have an effect, too?
Here's a patch to that effect:
2003-05-11 Jim Meyering <address@hidden>
* time/strftime.c (my_strftime): Let the `-' (no-pad) flag affect
the space-padded-by-default conversion specifiers, %e, %k, %l.
Index: strftime.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/glibc/libc/time/strftime.c,v
retrieving revision 1.93
diff -u -p -r1.93 strftime.c
--- strftime.c 19 Jan 2003 18:37:32 -0000 1.93
+++ strftime.c 11 May 2003 15:02:58 -0000
@@ -977,8 +977,8 @@ my_strftime (s, maxsize, format, tp ut_a
jump to one of these two labels. */
do_number_spacepad:
- /* Force `_' flag unless overwritten by `0' flag. */
- if (pad != L_('0'))
+ /* Force `_' flag unless overridden by `0' or `-' flag. */
+ if (pad != L_('0') && pad != L_('-'))
pad = L_('_');
do_number:
- strftime and `-' (no-pad) directive has no effect on %e,
Jim Meyering <=