[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Recent glibc time_t redefinition?



On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 12:13:28PM +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 10:05:52AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 06:50:42AM +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote:
> > > Can anyone provide me with mailing list archive URLs from when this change
> > > would have been discussed publically?
> > 
> > I assume it was deliberate? Or was it unintentional?
> 
> I'm assuming it was deliberate also, to address the 2038 bug. I've seen 
> much talk of it back in 2000 in Google, but nothing more recent.

It was deliberate. The postgresql guys noticed when some release redhat
shipped with these modifications. They tried to convince the glibc guys to
revert but they refused.

Basically, POSIX doesn't define mktime() before 1970, so glibc doesn't
support it. Or so the argument goes.

IIRC, postgresql has now copied the mktime code from FreeBSDs libc to deal
with the problem. Or maybe they're just thinking about it.

Some references:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-glibc/2002/debian-glibc-200205/msg00010.html
http://maths.newcastle.edu.au/~rking/R/help/03a/0066.html
http://archives.postgresql.org/search.php?ps=10&q=glibc+mktime&ps=10&wm=wrd&o=0&ul=%2Fpgsql-hackers%2F&m=all&wf=222211&cat
-- 
Martijn van Oosterhout   <kleptog@svana.org>   http://svana.org/kleptog/
> Support bacteria! They're the only culture some people have.

Attachment: pgpupta856af8.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: