Sure, why the heck not? Why didn't I think of that? So this instead, right?
tm_returned = localtime_r(¤t_time, &mtm);
g_return_if_fail(tm_returned != NULL);
And get rid of the next line: mtm = *tm_returned;
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Derek Atkins wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As I said in my last me
Phil,
Yes, I know this was committed a year ago, but I'm sitting at 34,000
feet and finally found time to go through the set of changes over the
past... year..
Anyways, this change seems wrong to me. The main difference between
gmtime() and gmtime_r() is that the latter is thread-safe whereas th
Hi,
As I said in my last message, I'm catching up on lots of changesets.
Is there any reason not to use localtime_r() here? We already make
sure it exists by using AC_REPLACE_FUNCS().
-derek
Charles Day writes:
> Author: cedayiv
> Date: 2008-08-08 19:38:45 -0400 (Fri, 08 Aug 2008)
> New Revis
Perhaps this initialization should be made in the Recurrence
initializer? Otherwise we'd have to deal with this setting
everywhere it gets created?
(Just an idea)
-derek
Christian Stimming writes:
> Author: cstim
> Date: 2009-01-31 14:49:49 -0500 (Sat, 31 Jan 2009)
> New Revision: 17865
> Tra
