On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 06:30:02PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > ]] Dave Reisner > > > On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 05:27:08PM +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > > On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 11:06:47AM -0400, Dave Reisner wrote: > > > > Also adds a few tests for the absolute cases of parse_timestamp. > > > Yeah, that looks useful. > > > > > > You don't test negative values. Maybe you could an example with a negative > > > value to the documentation and tests? > > > > Negative epoch values? What would this represent? > > Time before the epoch? > > $ LANG=C date -d @-10000 > Wed Dec 31 22:13:20 CET 1969 > > So date(1) already understands this.
Uggh, do we really need to document this? I don't see why/where it would actually be useful. FWIW, parse_timestamp sort of already handles negative values with the exception of anything that results in a timestamp of -1 -- mktime can't distinguish between a real timestamp of -1 and an invalid struct tm which it can't convert. $ journalctl --since='1969-12-31 18:59:59' Failed to parse timestamp: 1969-12-31 18:59:59 But then there's also some inconsistent behavior which parse_timestamp already exposes when dealing with absolutes: $ journalctl --since='1969-12-31 18:59:58' -- Logs begin at Fri 2013-11-15 18:11:44 EST, end at Sun 2014-03-23 14:01:01 EDT. -- <EOF> $ journalctl --since='-100 years' -- Logs begin at Fri 2013-11-15 18:11:44 EST, end at Sun 2014-03-23 14:01:01 EDT. -- <logs follow> I don't think this is going to work out so well when the return type involed (usec_t) is unsigned... > -- > Tollef Fog Heen > UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are > _______________________________________________ > systemd-devel mailing list > systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel