On Dec 16, 1:20pm, Mouse wrote:
}
} >> 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.
} > I'm not sure why anyone thinks that ship didn't sail years ago.
}
} > % cal 6 1942
}
} How is that relevant to time_t?
Indeed, I just looked at the source for cal(1). It uses time_t
in two places. The first is if you use cal with no arguments, it
uses it in getting the current time. The second is in the day_array()
function. The comment above it says:
/*
* day_array --
* Fill in an array of 42 integers with a calendar. Assume for a moment
* that you took the (maximum) 6 rows in a calendar and stretched them
* out end to end. You would have 42 numbers or spaces. This routine
* builds that array for any month from Jan. 1 through Dec. 9999.
*/
I haven't fully analyzed it, but I suspect it could be done in a
different way. At no point is any math done on a time_t variable.
}-- End of excerpt from Mouse
