On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 01:33:41PM +0200, Lars Munch wrote:
> tm_isdst needs to be initialized to make sure mktime does not fail
> on recent versions of glibc
>
> See:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1653340
> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24630
>
> Signed-off-by:
> Sent: Friday, 14 May 2021 19:30
> To: Geva, Erez (ext) (DI PA DCP R 3)
> Cc: linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [Linuxptp-devel] [PATCH 1/4] ts2phc: Fix uninitialized variable
> in nmea_scan_rmc
>
> So how about the following simple explanation?
m: Lars Munch
Sent: Friday, 14 May 2021 19:30
To: Geva, Erez (ext) (DI PA DCP R 3)
Cc: linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Linuxptp-devel] [PATCH 1/4] ts2phc: Fix uninitialized variable in
nmea_scan_rmc
So how about the following simple explanation?
According to POSIX.1-2017 tm_is
t measure bugs by code. Measure by complexity.
>
> Erez
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Lars Munch
> Sent: Friday, 14 May 2021 18:14
> To: Geva, Erez (ext) (DI PA DCP R 3)
> Cc: linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [Linuxptp-devel] [PATCH 1/4
/4] ts2phc: Fix uninitialized variable in
nmea_scan_rmc
So much work for a one-liner. I see If I can come up with a better explanation.
On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 4:34 PM Geva, Erez wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I think it is better to use a short explanation how does mktime() use th
So much work for a one-liner. I see If I can come up with a better explanation.
On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 4:34 PM Geva, Erez wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I think it is better to use a short explanation how does mktime() use the
> tm_isdst flag, and why should it be set to 0.
>
> For me the problem is
Hi,
I think it is better to use a short explanation how does mktime() use the
tm_isdst flag, and why should it be set to 0.
For me the problem is that we did not comply with proper use of mktime().
Fixing glibc only revealed the bug in linuxptp.
So we fix linuxptp, not trying to comply with
