On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 10:26:47 +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> yeah, I first had that and then deleted it.
OK.
- todd
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 11:58:44AM -0700, Todd C. Miller wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 10:44:00 +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
>
> > And here's the man page diff, our ctime and asctime actually do not
> > ever return NULL, while posix allows that.
>
> Isn't it worth documenting that ctime and asctim
Rod Whitworth
> I feel that date should spit out an error message rather than
> crash even if it only happens when some idiot plays with the numbers.
Every time you do that I get a little bit sadder.
Leave something for me.
On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 10:44:00 +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> And here's the man page diff, our ctime and asctime actually do not
> ever return NULL, while posix allows that.
Isn't it worth documenting that ctime and asctime are allowed to
return NULL, even though they do not on OpenBSD?
- todd
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 09:34:51AM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 09:08:18PM +1300, Philip Guenther wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 8:33 PM, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> > ...
> > > Right. what happens is that localtime(3) returns NULL, because the
> > > year is not represe
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 09:08:18PM +1300, Philip Guenther wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 8:33 PM, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> ...
> > Right. what happens is that localtime(3) returns NULL, because the
> > year is not representable as an int. struct tm.tm_year must be an int
> > according to posix.
>
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 8:33 PM, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
...
> Right. what happens is that localtime(3) returns NULL, because the
> year is not representable as an int. struct tm.tm_year must be an int
> according to posix.
>
> The diff below catches the case.
ok guenther@
> But it does not solve
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 03:52:23PM +1100, Rod Whitworth wrote:
> I had a short run-up of the first 5.5 i386 snap install and it
> looked pretty much as expected but a more recent one showed up and I
> grabbed it and loaded it onto my little Shuttle.
>
> The dmesg is below but I'll make some obser
I had a short run-up of the first 5.5 i386 snap install and it
looked pretty much as expected but a more recent one showed up and
I grabbed it and loaded it onto my little Shuttle.
The dmesg is below but I'll make some observations first.
Unlike the earlier snap the screen does not get entirel
