Date:Sat, 5 Nov 2022 19:16:28 +
From:Taylor R Campbell
Message-ID: <20221105191644.4d1ae60...@jupiter.mumble.net>
| I'm not sure this is adequately specified either.
I'm sure it isn't, the strftime(3) man page is crap. That part
I never doubted. The mktime
> Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2022 17:22:22 +0700
> From: Robert Elz
>
> One thing to beware of though, is that there is not enough info in a
> struct tm to determine which timezone created it. It simply cannot
> (in general) be done. Changing struct tm (however appealing that
> might be - and believe
Date:Sun, 6 Nov 2022 11:40:38 +
From:Taylor R Campbell
Message-ID: <20221106114053.995e260...@jupiter.mumble.net>
| I don't think that's needed for what uwe@ and dholland@ were looking
| for, which -- if I understand correctly -- is that:
|
| struct tm
On Sat, Nov 05, 2022 at 08:49:57PM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
> | (a) It follows from the observations so far that if I set ->tm_gmtoff
> | to 101 and ->tm_zone to "abracadabra" (as well as populating the rest
> | of the structure), and ask strftime to print those fields, it will not
> |
The following patch is based on the assumption that the current points
of contention (e.g. about undefined behavior calling mktime) are
irrelevant for the time being as taking advantage of them requires
code changes.
Index: strftime.3
==
On Sun, Nov 06, 2022 at 05:31:59PM +, David Holland wrote:
> > [Aside: a truly bizarre factoid - when we do eventually claim, in
> > unistd.h, that we support Posix.7 (ie: 2008) rather than Posix.6 (2001)
> > the support we have for strftime_l() will actually vanish - the function
> >
>> I don't think that's needed for what uwe@ and dholland@ were looking
>> for, which -- if I understand correctly -- is that:
>| gmtime_r(&t, >m);
>| localtime_r(&t, | strftime_XXX(gbuf, sizeof(gbuf), "... %s ...", >m);
>| strftime_XXX(lbuf, sizeof(lbuf), "... %s ...", <