On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 9:27 AM, Rob Landley <[email protected]> wrote: > On 07/28/2015 03:38 PM, enh wrote: >> (i haven't actually merged this in the Android tree, but my git-fu is >> too weak to get a diff of a new file otherwise.) >> >> Author: Elliott Hughes <[email protected]> >> Date: Tue Jul 28 13:14:17 2015 -0700 >> >> Reject invalid dates in date(1). >> >> Humans get upset when date(1) lets mktime(3) work out what the 99th day >> of the 99th month would be rather than rejecting the invalid date. For >> the subtly wrong cases, rather than get into the leap year business, >> let's rely on localtime_r(3). >> >> Bug: http://b/22788816 > > I don't suppose there's a better bug URL than that?
no, it was an internal bug. apparently CTS was assuming it could pass a Unix epoch time, but instead of rejecting it we were setting the clock to a crazy time way in the future leading to obscure unexpected test behavior. > I note that people do actually use this behavior: > > http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2005-June/048753.html my original version of this patch just checked that the various fields were in range, but when i got to checking tm_mday and needed to deal with leap years i decided to let localtime_r take the strain instead. we can go back to that if you like. either solves my problem. > Rob > _______________________________________________ > Toybox mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.landley.net/listinfo.cgi/toybox-landley.net -- Elliott Hughes - http://who/enh - http://jessies.org/~enh/ Android native code/tools questions? Mail me/drop by/add me as a reviewer. _______________________________________________ Toybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.landley.net/listinfo.cgi/toybox-landley.net
