On Wed 09 Jun, Jerzy Karczmarczuk wrote:
> ... and , if you are already here,...
> could somebody explain, please, what does it mean to have a compiler
> which is *NOT* y2k compliant,
I have found that some compilers put the date and time of compilation in the
resulting object files, so it is possible that such a complier might suffer
a Y2K problem, even on a Y2K compliant OS.
> what is the difference between "full"
> and "not full" compliance,
I don't know, this looks like IT salesman speak to me. Perhaps "not full"
compliance means it will get dates wrong, but won't do anything worse (like
crash or destroy files).
> and why should we really care.
This can be a real pain if you're working under a QA system that demands that
software builds are repeatable (I.E. they will always generate the byte for
byte identical object files, given the same sources). I suppose this is true
whether or not the the compiler is Y2K compliant, but as a point of principal
I would expect all information generated by a compiler to be correct. You
never know when you might end up using that information (to update libraries
for example).
Regards
--
Adrian Hey
