I believe I have fixed this bug, but I'm not sure if I put the test case in the right place within the file. Please see the attached patch.
From e975f8ae8d494985a51faed5b15c5664a557e0e2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Andrew Moss <andrewm...@pobox.com> Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 11:58:29 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] Fixed bug: ~N mishandles small nanoseconds value
Fixes <http://bugs.gnu.org/26261>. Reported by Zefram <zef...@fysh.org>. * module/srfi/srfi-19.scm ("define directives"): N padding increased from 7 to 9 * test-suite/tests/srfi-19.test ("date->string"): New test. --- module/srfi/srfi-19.scm | 2 +- test-suite/tests/srfi-19.test | 5 +++++ 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/module/srfi/srfi-19.scm b/module/srfi/srfi-19.scm index 658ccd9..4823f2f 100644 --- a/module/srfi/srfi-19.scm +++ b/module/srfi/srfi-19.scm @@ -1060,7 +1060,7 @@ (newline port))) (cons #\N (lambda (date pad-with port) (display (padding (date-nanosecond date) - pad-with 7) + pad-with 9) port))) (cons #\p (lambda (date pad-with port) (display (locale-am-string/pm (date-hour date)) port))) diff --git a/test-suite/tests/srfi-19.test b/test-suite/tests/srfi-19.test index d63e622..534cd7c 100644 --- a/test-suite/tests/srfi-19.test +++ b/test-suite/tests/srfi-19.test @@ -175,6 +175,11 @@ incomplete numerical tower implementation.)" (equal? "Sun Jun 05 18:33:00+0200 2005" (date->string date)))) + (pass-if "date->string pads small nanoseconds values correctly" + (let* ((date (make-date 99999999 5 34 12 26 3 2017 0))) + (equal? "099999999" + (date->string date "~N")))) + ;; check time comparison procedures (let* ((time1 (make-time time-monotonic 0 0)) (time2 (make-time time-monotonic 0 0)) -- 2.7.4
