Defect Report #052
Submission Date: 21 Mar 93
Submittor: Project Editor (P.J. Plauger)
Source: Paul Edwards
In subclause 220.127.116.11, page 172, the example is not strictly conforming.
The mktime return is compared against -1 instead of (time_t)-1,
which could cause a problem with a strictly conforming implementation.
In subclause 18.104.22.168, page 172, line 16, change:
if (mktime(&time_str) == -1)
if (mktime(&time_str) == (time_t)-1)
Index entry for static lists subclause 22.214.171.124 instead of subclause
In the index, page 217, change:
static storage-class specifier, 126.96.36.199, 188.8.131.52, 6.5.1,
static storage-class specifier, 184.108.40.206, 220.127.116.11, 6.5.1,
Footnote 1, page 1, says that the C Standard comes with a Rationale;
The footnote actually states, in part, ``It is accompanied by a
Rationale document that explains ...'' And indeed, the C Standard
was accompanied by such a document throughout its approval process.
ISO, unfortunately, has elected not to distribute the Rationale with
the C Standard. ``Accompanied by'' does not promise ``comes
with'' when you buy the C Standard.
Previous Defect Report
< - >
Next Defect Report