AW: AW: AW: AW: [HACKERS] Re: tinterval - operator problems on AIX

2001-01-22 Thread Zeugswetter Andreas SB
> The other category is run-time behaviour, which is the present case of > testing whether mktime() behaves a certain way when given certain > arguments. Another item that has been thrown around over the years is > whether the system supports Unix domain sockets (essentially a run-time > behavio

AW: AW: AW: AW: [HACKERS] Re: tinterval - operator problems on AIX

2001-01-19 Thread Zeugswetter Andreas SB
> > I agree that configure is the way to go. What if someone has > > installed a third party library to provide a better mktime() and > > localtime()? > > Exactly. What if someone has a binary PostgreSQL package installed, then > updates his time library to something supposedly binary compatib

AW: AW: AW: AW: [HACKERS] Re: tinterval - operator problems on AIX

2001-01-17 Thread Zeugswetter Andreas SB
> > The correct thing to do instead of the #if defined (_AIX) would be to use > > something like #ifdef NO_NEGATIVE_MKTIME and set that with a configure. > > Thomas, are you volunteering ? > > Actually, I can volunteer to be supportive of your efforts ;) I'm > traveling at the moment, and don't

AW: AW: AW: AW: [HACKERS] Re: tinterval - operator problems on AIX

2001-01-11 Thread Zeugswetter Andreas SB
> > As I see it, the Linux results are also not 100 % correct > in respect to dates > > before 1970. (based on assumption that Solaris is correct) > > <| Sat May 10 23:59:12 1947 PST > > >| Sat May 10 23:59:12 1947 PDT > > Was 1947 PDT or PST ? In eighter case one result is one h