This is the mail archive of the libc-hacker@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the glibc project.
Note that libc-hacker is a closed list. You may look at the archives of this list, but subscription and posting are not open.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
Thorsten Kukuk <kukuk@suse.de> writes: > strptime("12", "%I", &testbuf) should return tm_hour = 12 > The range is [1,12], not [0,11]. But we return tm_hour = 0. Which is OK. %I alone can be interpreted as 0 hours or 12 hours (12am or 12pm). And you are confusing input format specification [1,12] with the allowed values for tm_hour (defined in <time.h>). > strptime("0091 00 01", "%y %w %W", &testbuf) returns NULL. Which I argue is acceptable. The input for %y is up to two digits wide. I know that other systems do this differently but there is nothing written which says this is the only or even right interpretation. > strptime("0091", "%y", &testbuf) returns tm_year = 100, but this > should be tm_year = 91. Same. > The leading zeros are allowed. Leading zeros refers to the zeros you can add before the digit for numbers < 10. > We dereference the strptime result without checking, if NULL was > returned. So our test program seg.faults. This is not really a bug but you can change it if you want. Feel free. -- ---------------. ,-. 1325 Chesapeake Terrace Ulrich Drepper \ ,-------------------' \ Sunnyvale, CA 94089 USA Red Hat `--' drepper at redhat.com `------------------------
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |