This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: mktime loop
- From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin at cygwin dot com>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 18:57:12 +0200
- Subject: Re: mktime loop
- References: <5244063b734b165baf34bdebaff0aca5 at denis-excoffier dot org> <20130513153651 dot GD5045 at calimero dot vinschen dot de> <20130513154921 dot GF8890 at calimero dot vinschen dot de> <27BBE8FE-303A-432D-94AA-AF834124D125 at Denis-Excoffier dot org>
- Reply-to: cygwin at cygwin dot com
On May 13 18:41, Denis Excoffier wrote:
> On 2013-05-13 17:49, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > Erm... hang on. Is that really a problem? 2147483647 is 0x7fffffff,
> > which is the maximum you get with a 4 byte time_t (== signed long)
> > anyway. If you switch the date to 2038-01-20, the value will be
> > negative, and therefore outside the scope of the 4 byte time_t. So this
> > is a hard restriction of using 4 byte time_t.
> > The solution is:
> > - Either somebody changes 32 bit Cygwin to 8 byte time_t while keeping
> > all the 4 byte time_t APIs intact to maintain compatibility with
> > existing binaries(*),
> > - or, you switch to a 64 bit Windows and use 64 bit Cygwin ;)
> I understand.
> I suppose you will however be willing to provide us a means to workaround
> the "autoconf mktime usability test failing" (see for example in
> gawk-4.1.0 where all the tm fields are set to 128). Now, instead of only
> failing (i presume), it hangs. Sorry, this specific point should have been
> noticed in my original post.
> Or do we have to patch every impacted ./configure?
Good point. I guess the right thing to do here is for mktime to
return -1 instead of hanging. I look into that.
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple