On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 12:06:04PM +0100, Martin Husemann wrote: > > > I see no reason why that should be valid or more general, why any > > > negative value of time_t is required to be valid. > > > > Are you Dan Pop? :-) > > Not sure about that, but I agree that we should not extend the range of > time_t (aka "seconds since the epoch") to negative values. It is a pandora > box, keep it closed.
I'm not sure why anyone thinks that ship didn't sail years ago. % cal 6 1942 June 1942 S M Tu W Th F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 On what basis does that work besides the use of the 1970 epoch? -- David A. Holland dholl...@netbsd.org