On Mon, Nov 05 2012, Blake Jones wrote:
>> Yet another idea for an alternative. Compile by entering 'sh xtimegm.c'
>> and then run ./xtimegm
>>
>> Simple cases seems to work. Dst change may (or then may not) give one
>> hour difference to the expected. The test "coverage" could be easily
>> expan
On Sun, Nov 04 2012, Blake Jones wrote:
> Hi Jani,
>
>> I'd prefer to use timegm() where available, and the suggested
>> alternative [1] elsewhere.
>>
>> [1] http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/online/pages/man3/timegm.3.html
>
> I considered this alternative, but decided against it because it's
>> The other approaches rely on letting libc do all the hard work of
>> time zone manipulation, and then reading the tea leaves to find a way
>> to undo it.
>
> Did you look at the gnu libc version -- I bet it is pretty hairy...
I didn't look at either the GNU or the Solaris libc version. But th
>> The other approaches rely on letting libc do all the hard work of
>> time zone manipulation, and then reading the tea leaves to find a way
>> to undo it.
>
> Did you look at the gnu libc version -- I bet it is pretty hairy...
I didn't look at either the GNU or the Solaris libc version. But th
On Mon, Nov 05 2012, Blake Jones wrote:
>> Yet another idea for an alternative. Compile by entering 'sh xtimegm.c'
>> and then run ./xtimegm
>>
>> Simple cases seems to work. Dst change may (or then may not) give one
>> hour difference to the expected. The test "coverage" could be easily
>> expan
> Yet another idea for an alternative. Compile by entering 'sh xtimegm.c'
> and then run ./xtimegm
>
> Simple cases seems to work. Dst change may (or then may not) give one
> hour difference to the expected. The test "coverage" could be easily
> expanded to that ;)
>
> Hmm, I also found this:
> h
> Yet another idea for an alternative. Compile by entering 'sh xtimegm.c'
> and then run ./xtimegm
>
> Simple cases seems to work. Dst change may (or then may not) give one
> hour difference to the expected. The test "coverage" could be easily
> expanded to that ;)
>
> Hmm, I also found this:
> h
On Sun, Nov 04 2012, Blake Jones wrote:
> Hi Jani,
>
>> I'd prefer to use timegm() where available, and the suggested
>> alternative [1] elsewhere.
>>
>> [1] http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/online/pages/man3/timegm.3.html
>
> I considered this alternative, but decided against it because it's
On Sun, 04 Nov 2012, Blake Jones wrote:
> Hi Jani,
>
>> I'd prefer to use timegm() where available, and the suggested
>> alternative [1] elsewhere.
>>
>> [1] http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/online/pages/man3/timegm.3.html
>
> I considered this alternative, but decided against it because it's
> That is a valid point. Yet it doesn't change the fact that I'd prefer
> to use timegm() where available. Internally, glibc uses the same code
> to implement both timegm() and mktime(), and I'd hate it if the
> results were subtly different depending on whether the time zone was
> specified in the
> That is a valid point. Yet it doesn't change the fact that I'd prefer
> to use timegm() where available. Internally, glibc uses the same code
> to implement both timegm() and mktime(), and I'd hate it if the
> results were subtly different depending on whether the time zone was
> specified in the
Hi Jani,
> I'd prefer to use timegm() where available, and the suggested
> alternative [1] elsewhere.
>
> [1] http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/online/pages/man3/timegm.3.html
I considered this alternative, but decided against it because it's
completely MT-unsafe. I don't know whether libnotm
On Sun, 04 Nov 2012, Blake Jones wrote:
> Hi Jani,
>
>> I'd prefer to use timegm() where available, and the suggested
>> alternative [1] elsewhere.
>>
>> [1] http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/online/pages/man3/timegm.3.html
>
> I considered this alternative, but decided against it because it's
On Nov 4, 2012 11:30 AM, "Blake Jones" wrote:
>
> The timegm(3) function is a non-standard extension to libc which is
> available in GNU libc and on some BSDs. Although SunOS had this
> function in its libc, Solaris (unfortunately) removed it. This patch
> implements a very simple version of tim
Hi Jani,
> I'd prefer to use timegm() where available, and the suggested
> alternative [1] elsewhere.
>
> [1] http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/online/pages/man3/timegm.3.html
I considered this alternative, but decided against it because it's
completely MT-unsafe. I don't know whether libnotm
On Nov 4, 2012 11:30 AM, "Blake Jones" wrote:
>
> The timegm(3) function is a non-standard extension to libc which is
> available in GNU libc and on some BSDs. Although SunOS had this
> function in its libc, Solaris (unfortunately) removed it. This patch
> implements a very simple version of tim
The timegm(3) function is a non-standard extension to libc which is
available in GNU libc and on some BSDs. Although SunOS had this
function in its libc, Solaris (unfortunately) removed it. This patch
implements a very simple version of timegm() which is good enough for
parse-time-string.c.
Alth
The timegm(3) function is a non-standard extension to libc which is
available in GNU libc and on some BSDs. Although SunOS had this
function in its libc, Solaris (unfortunately) removed it. This patch
implements a very simple version of timegm() which is good enough for
parse-time-string.c.
Alth
18 matches
Mail list logo
