Follow-up Comment #6, bug #66174 (group groff): At 2024-10-15T04:20:15-0400, Bjarni Ingi Gislason wrote: > Follow-up Comment #5, bug #66174 (group groff): > > The report is valid as it shows a regression.
I don't agree. The input document uses incorrect syntax for what it's trying to do. The same "regression" would occur if the formatter implementation widened its integer type to 64 bits; "1234567890123" would then neither wrap nor saturate. ((2^63)-1 is 9223372036854775807.) You will search in vain for a specification of *roff that mandates a specific bit width for its integer type or specifies any of the 3 means of handling overflow: trapping, wrapping, or saturating. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/363235.363259 > Installed "nroff" (version 1.23.0) and "mandoc" render the man page > fine. The document got lucky with those formatters. It should be changed to say what it means: either prefix the integer literal with `\&` to make the argument a string, or express the width as a numeric expression (measurement), `13n`. _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?66174> _______________________________________________ Message sent via Savannah https://savannah.gnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
