Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Howard Chu dixit: >=20 >> The remaining format patches for debug statements will have no impact >> on the correctness of execution or output. This and all of the >> following patches are being rejected. >=20 > There are multiple systems on which sizeof(time_t) > sizeof(long), > with more expected as 2038 dawns. >=20 > Are you saying you want to prohibit users on these platforms from > debugging OpenLDAP? >=20 >>> --- a/contrib/slapd-modules/smbk5pwd/smbk5pwd.c >>> +++ b/contrib/slapd-modules/smbk5pwd/smbk5pwd.c >>> @@ -605,7 +605,7 @@ static int smbk5pwd_exop_passwd( >>> keys[0].bv_val =3D ch_malloc( LDAP_PVT_INTTYPE_CHARS(long) ); >>> keys[0].bv_len =3D snprintf(keys[0].bv_val, >>> LDAP_PVT_INTTYPE_CHARS(long), >>> - "%ld", slap_get_time()); >>> + "%lld", (long long)slap_get_time()); >>> BER_BVZERO( &keys[1] ); >=20 > This doesn=E2=80=99t look like debugging output to me.
I already addressed that patch explicitly. "The rest" covers all the othe= rs. You might have correctly identified a Y2038 issue. You certainly have not written a correct fix for it. --=20 -- Howard Chu CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/ Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/
