Re: zsh 5.0.8.-test-3

[Mikael Magnusson <mikachu@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 3:27 AM, Danek Duvall <duvall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 01:09:07AM +0200, Mikael Magnusson wrote:
>
>> >           strftime '%#A' 0
>> >           strftime '%^_10B' 0
>> >           strftime %03Ey 650000000
>> >           strftime %-Oe 0
>>
>> [ ... ]
>>
>> So it seems. I don't have access to any obscure operating systems
>
> Obscure?  <sigh>
>
> I know, I know.

I was just kidding, read it as "operating systems that aren't Linux" :).

>> so I
>> just guessed that if someone supported one extension, they'd support
>> all of them. The one we test to see if we should skip the test is just
>> zero-padding though which is pretty easy/obvious to implement. I guess
>> we can check that one instead / as well. It looks like it supports
>> both # and E too, so those wouldn't do the trick.
>
> FWIW, we do have our man pages online:
>
>     http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E36784_01/html/E36874/strftime-3c.html
>
> which documents # and E and O, as well as ^ and _.  So I don't know why it
> didn't work, unless the underlying implementation is broken, which is
> entirely possible (and likely enough that I'd say you should just keep the
> test as it is and I'll go make sure the appropriate bug is filed and just
> live with the test failure for now).

I'll let Peter decide which of those to do then.

FWIW glibc has some fun bugs/quirks too, (%EA isn't specified to do anything)
% date +%014EA
00000000%014EA

> Still, it seems like the test should be able to distinguish between broken
> zsh code and broken system code.  Or not really care about what extensions
> the implementation supports, if everything is just a system-dependent
> passthrough.

Well, it's a bit hard to tell, the output would be the same in both
cases (depending on how broken the zsh code got).

-- 
Mikael Magnusson