On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 4:46 PM, John Keeping <j...@keeping.me.uk> wrote: > > I decided not to do that based on this message: > > > http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/2002-November/025578.html > > but of course it doesn't provide any actual reason for why that version > doesn't work. >
Aye yie yie. Time handling functions are a mess. I just went looking at how glibc [1] and uclibc [2] actually go about doing things, and it's a real mess in there. Looks like the replacement function in the patch might not be completely correct. [1] http://git.uclibc.org/uClibc/tree/libc/misc/time/time.c#n2330 [2] http://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=blob;f=time/mktime.c;h=e75132c2e457af4b5629eef302c0d6dac15fef5c;hb=HEAD#l348 (uclibc gets bonus points for using cgit) > > We only use timegm in week calculations, where we do: > > time_t t = timegm(tm); > t = <new value>; > gmtime_r(&t, tm); > > so I wonder whether it would be equivalent to use mktime/localtime_r > instead of timegm/gmtime_r. > gmtime(timegm(tm)) == tm and localtime(mktime(tm)) == tm So I can't imagine there'd be a problem with just replacing those functions. _______________________________________________ cgit mailing list cgit@hjemli.net http://hjemli.net/mailman/listinfo/cgit
