Thread: AW: AW: AW: AW: AW: AW: AW: Re: tinterval - operator pr oble ms o n AIX
AW: AW: AW: AW: AW: AW: AW: Re: tinterval - operator pr oble ms o n AIX
From
Zeugswetter Andreas SB
Date:
> > We do not need any execution time checks for this at all. The objective is > > to determine whether mktime works for any results that would be negative. > > On AIX and IRIX all calls to mktime for dates before 1970 lead to a result of > > -1, and the configure test is supposed to give a define for exactly that behavior. > > Okay, so you call mktime with a pre-1970 date once when the system starts > up or when the particular function is first used and then save the result > in a static variable. Can anybody else give an OK to this approach, that affects all platforms ? I am not convinced, that this is the way to go. Andreas PS: next response not before Monday, I am off now :-)
Re: AW: AW: AW: AW: AW: AW: AW: Re: tinterval - operator proble ms o n AIX
From
Thomas Lockhart
Date:
> > Okay, so you call mktime with a pre-1970 date once when the system starts > > up or when the particular function is first used and then save the result > > in a static variable. > Can anybody else give an OK to this approach, that affects all platforms ? > I am not convinced, that this is the way to go. Nope. So far we have consensus that #ifdef <something> is the way to go (I just made some changes to the date/time stuff to isolate the #ifdef __CYGWIN__ garbage, and would like to avoid more cruft), but we are not unanimous on the way to get that set. - Thomas