From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7279 invoked by alias); 20 Dec 2007 13:56:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 7193 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Dec 2007 13:56:54 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 13:56:45 +0000 Received: (qmail 25338 invoked from network); 20 Dec 2007 13:56:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digraph.polyomino.org.uk) (joseph@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 20 Dec 2007 13:56:43 -0000 Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost) by digraph.polyomino.org.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1J5LtC-0006CS-HB; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 13:56:42 +0000 Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 14:16:00 -0000 From: "Joseph S. Myers" To: Kai Tietz cc: Danny Smith , GCC Patches , NightStrike Subject: Re: Ping - old patch from April - mingw support for I32/I64 MS printf formatters to c-format.c In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2007-12/txt/msg00996.txt.bz2 On Thu, 20 Dec 2007, Kai Tietz wrote: > I moved the test case to gcc.dg/format as mentioned. No until now I didn't > ran all test-case for this. But I am certain, we need to re-arrange things > here. I will await a patch with such rearrangements, confirmed to pass all tests on both MinGW and non-MinGW, and with new tests added to test that all the standard and GNU features not supported by Windows receive proper diagnostics (for example, a test that %ll gets a diagnostic on Windows), before attempting any detailed review. I also await the answer to my question: Does the set of format features supported on Windows depend at all on the version of Windows? If so, for what version of Windows did you prepare the tables of supported features? Were the tables prepared by examining Windows documentation, or by running tests on Windows? Either would be OK, but one or the other must have been done for every feature and combination in the tables you have of Windows formats, and for verifying that the C99 features removed as not supported on Windows are indeed not supported. -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com