On 01/21/2017 06:25 PM, Rich Felker wrote: > On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 03:18:28PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote: >>> Or if it's signed, that's -1346458162 which would be... sometime in the >>> 1930's? hmmm... "./date -D %s -d -1346458162" is failing under glibc, >>> and failing _differently_ under musl. (Wheee.) >>> >>> /me goes down tangent rathole debugging why. >> .... >>> >>> (Answer: musl doesn't implement %s at all, and glibc doesn't allow the >>> %s value it converts to be negative.) >> >> Query: does bionic strptime() handle %s, and if so does it handle >> negative input values? (If not I suppose I can try to special case this >> in toybox, but ew.) >> >> Also, Rich: any interest in adding this to musl? > > strptime with %s? I suspect there are some nasty underspecified issues > with how it interacts with timezones.
I thought unix time was always UTS and the timezone just affected how it was displayed? > All the standard specifiers work > with broken-down (struct tm) time so timezone is irrelevant to how > they operate. I'm tempted to add support for it myself, but the problem is the format could be "time=[%s]" and I'd have to parse context data. (I can just strstr() but I'd have to make sure it wasn't %%s...) > So the answer isn't no, but "it's complicated", and needs more > research on how other implementations work, I think it's just glibc so far? > if they're consistent, > pros and cons of different possible behaviors, etc. It's not that big a deal for me to do it myself, I just thought I'd raise the issue. If bionic and musl both add %s that supports negative numbers, I'm happy to leave glibc as broken until they catch up. If they don't, it makes sense to do it myself... > Rich Rob _______________________________________________ Toybox mailing list Toybox@lists.landley.net http://lists.landley.net/listinfo.cgi/toybox-landley.net