these functions were spuriously failing in the case where the buffer
size was exactly the number of bytes/characters to be written,
including null termination. since these functions do not have defined
error conditions other than buffer size, a reasonable application may
fail to check the return value when the format string and buffer size
are known to be valid; such an application could then attempt to use a
non-terminated buffer.
in addition to fixing the bug, I have changed the error handling
behavior so that these functions always null-terminate the output
except in the case where the buffer size is zero, and so that they
always write as many characters as possible before failing, rather
than dropping whole fields that do not fit. this actually simplifies
the logic somewhat anyway.
at present, since POSIX requires %F to behave as %+4Y-%m-%d and ISO C
requires %F to behave as %Y-%m-%d, the default behavior for %Y has
been changed to match %+4Y. this seems to be the only way to conform
to the requirements of both standards, and it does not affect years
prior to the year 10000. depending on the outcome of interpretations
from the standards bodies, this may be adjusted at some point.
LC_GLOBAL_LOCALE refers to the global locale, controlled by setlocale,
not the thread-local locale in effect which these functions should be
using. neither LC_GLOBAL_LOCALE nor 0 has an argument to the *_l
functions has behavior defined by the standard, but 0 is a more
logical choice for requesting the callee to lookup the current locale.
in the future I may move the current locale lookup the the caller (the
non-_l-suffixed wrapper).
at this point, all of the locale logic is dummied out, so no harm was
done, but it should at least avoid misleading usage.
unlike the strftime commit, this one is purely an ABI compatibility
issue. the previous version of the code would have worked just as well
with LC_TIME once LC_TIME support is added.
to deal with the fact that the public headers may be used with pre-c99
compilers, __restrict is used in place of restrict, and defined
appropriately for any supported compiler. we also avoid the form
[restrict] since older versions of gcc rejected it due to a bug in the
original c99 standard, and instead use the form *restrict.
Rich Felker