Re: status of release 1.1

Markus Wanner schrieb:
> On 05/04/2014 12:06 AM, Thomas Keller wrote:
>> So I guess the timestamp that it supposed to handle
>> ("1901-12-13T20:45:51") should not be acceptable with a 32 bit time_t
>> and it should fail in such a case.
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> While time_t itself is 64-bits, some mktime internals are not. Maybe
> Apple just doesn't care about dates prior 1902. Maybe I should have done
> the same rather than the extensive check. It's not like people use
> monotone to handle such dates...

I can confirm that the dates_roundtrip_localtimes test now runs through
without issues. Well done!

Weird in the mktime semantics is really that - in the positive
directions - mktime can cope with dates beyond 2038, just not in the
negative direction with dates before 1902.

Anyways, thanks again,
Thomas.

-- 
GPG-Key 0x160D1092 | [email protected] | http://thomaskeller.biz
Please note that according to the EU law on data retention, information
on every electronic information exchange might be retained for a period
of six months or longer: http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/?lang=en

_______________________________________________
Monotone-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAlNlbXUACgkQaf7NlBYNEJJDwQCg+DWlkAw9V+I3xsVeP2i5j/zW
UdYAoPsr/sscdo8+4lAhz0KcjqwaoZ1r
=h8Ld
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----