On Wed, 2002-05-22 at 02:14, Tom Lane wrote:
> Trond Eivind Glomsrød <teg@redhat.com> writes:
> > Relying on nonstandardized/nondocumented behaviour is a program bug, not a
> > glibc bug. PostgreSQL needs fixing. Since we ship both, we're looking at
> > it, but glibc is not the component with a problem.
>
> A library that can no longer cope with dates before 1970 is NOT my idea
> of a component without a problem. We will be looking at ways to get
> around glibc's breakage at the application level, since we have little
> alternative other than to declare Linux an unsupported platform;
> but it's still glibc (and the ISO spec:-() that are broken.
IIRC the spec is not _really_ broken - it still allows the correct
behaviour :)
The fact the ISO spec is broken usually means that at least one of the
big vendors involved in ISO spec creation must have had a broken
implementation at that time.
Most likely they have fixed it by now ...
Does anyone know _any_ other libc that has this behaviour ?
--------------
Hannu
