ID:               25647
 Updated by:       [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Reported By:      jtucker at bsiweb dot com
-Status:           Open
+Status:           Bogus
 Bug Type:         Date/time related
 Operating System: Red Hat 9
 PHP Version:      4.3.3
 New Comment:

Thank you for taking the time to write to us, but this is not
a bug. Please double-check the documentation available at
http://www.php.net/manual/ and the instructions on how to report
a bug at http://bugs.php.net/how-to-report.php

This is a glibc issue not a PHP one. glibc 2.3+ no longer supports
timestamps < 1970 as it did before.


Previous Comments:
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[2003-09-24 13:33:05] jtucker at bsiweb dot com

Description:
------------
Hi,

We have a very troubling bug after upgrading Red Hat to 9.0 and PHP to
4.33. The problem is many of the date functions do not work with dates
before 1970 or after 2038. This is a result of the posix standard set
by glibc v2.3.

The major problem with this is this makes much of existing PHP code
broken. Red Hat 9 is dependent on this version of glibc, as well as
many libraries associated with PHP. A solution has been provided with
an adodb date library, but this breaks a large amount of existing
scripts including the Pear libraries and many pre-existing
applications.

Many users choices are grim, either lock themselves into earlier
versions of glibc, PHP, Linux, or be fored to update all their code to
use the adodb function calls, along with every application upgrade and
every update to Pear.

I strongly feel that support for date functions with glibc 2.3 should
be included in the next version of PHP. We can't all wait for PHP 5 to
support this functionality. Thank you.

Reproduce code:
---------------
getdate()
date() 
gmdate()
mktime()
gmmktime()
strtotime()

with any date before 1970 or after 2038 on a system compiled with glibc
2.3.



------------------------------------------------------------------------


-- 
Edit this bug report at http://bugs.php.net/?id=25647&edit=1

Reply via email to