Hi,
Lapo Luchini wrote:
> BTW: when using 64 bits isn't it usual to store signed milliseconds as
> opposed to unsigned seconds?
Yeah, thanks, good point. I'm using 1/100th seconds in
nvm.cvsimport-branch-reconstruction already anyway... date_t would get
even more usable there when using milliseco
Markus Wanner wrote:
> Zack Weinberg wrote:
>> I will not have time to look at the code until later today or perhaps
>> even tomorrow. In the meantime: are you storing Unix-epoch second
>> counts in the database? If so, then yes, I object, for the reasons in
>> my second message.
>
> No, I've on
Hi,
Zack Weinberg wrote:
> I will not have time to look at the code until later today or perhaps
> even tomorrow. In the meantime: are you storing Unix-epoch second
> counts in the database? If so, then yes, I object, for the reasons in
> my second message.
No, I've only changed the internal re
Hi,
Zack Weinberg wrote:
> I should add that this is only a problem because the CVS file format
> uses Unix-epoch second counts as a storage representation. The
> standards say nothing about the epoch used by time_t; it's not even
> guaranteed to be an arithmetic type! The problematic Windows gm
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 9:24 AM, Markus Wanner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Okay, thanks. Looks like enough reason to leave our own implementations
> of gmtime() and mktime() in there. I will mention these OSes in the
> comments, then.
>
> Any objections against landing nvm.dates on mainline?
I wi
Hi,
Zack Weinberg wrote:
> Yes. Some (not all) Windows C runtime libraries (or possibly
> operating system major releases, I didn't investigate this in detail)
> use a different epoch and/or don't implement the distinction between
> UTC and local time correctly. It would also be a problem if we
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Zack Weinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 7:07 AM, Markus Wanner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Are the mktime() and gmtime() system functions really that unusable for
>> portable
>> software?
>
> Yes. Some (not all) Windows C runtime li
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 7:07 AM, Markus Wanner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> While that's find and dandy, I'm still wondering why we (uhm.. Zack)
> have implemented gmtime() from scratch. The comments tell something
> about systems not using the Unix epoch. But which system? Are the
> mktime() and
