mbox series

[0/8] Y2038 struct tm related patches

Message ID 20181121002844.14530-1-albert.aribaud@3adev.fr
Headers show
Series Y2038 struct tm related patches | expand

Message

Albert ARIBAUD (3ADEV) Nov. 21, 2018, 12:28 a.m. UTC 
This series introduces Y2038-proof struct tm related functions.

First, it makes __tz_convert 64-bit-time compatible, as this function
is used in several struct tm related public interfaces. Then it adds
Y2038-proof versions of said interfaces.

Albert ARIBAUD (3ADEV) (7):
  Y2038: make __tz_convert compatible with 64-bit-time
  Y2038: add function __localtime64
  Y2038: add function __localtime64_r
  Y2038: add function __gmtime64
  Y2038: add function __gmtime64_r
  Y2038: add function __ctime64
  Y2038: add function __ctime64_r

Paul Eggert (1):
  Y2038: make __mktime_internal compatible with __time64_t

 include/time.h   | 81 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
 time/ctime.c     | 14 +++++++++
 time/ctime_r.c   | 13 ++++++++
 time/gmtime.c    | 33 ++++++++++++++++++--
 time/localtime.c | 35 ++++++++++++++++++---
 time/mktime.c    | 67 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
 time/offtime.c   | 12 +++----
 time/timegm.c    | 21 +++++++++++--
 time/tzfile.c    | 14 +++------
 time/tzset.c     | 27 ++++++----------
 10 files changed, 242 insertions(+), 75 deletions(-)

Comments

Albert ARIBAUD (3ADEV) Nov. 28, 2018, 11:45 a.m. UTC | #1 
On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 01:28:36 +0100, "Albert ARIBAUD (3ADEV)"
<albert.aribaud@3adev.fr> wrote :

> This series introduces Y2038-proof struct tm related functions.

Any feeback on these patches apart from Paul's? If not, then I'll apply
at least the first seven ones to master.

(the last one I will apply either as a pair with Paul's patch or as a
squash)
   
Cordialement,
Albert ARIBAUD
3ADEV
Joseph Myers Nov. 28, 2018, 4:49 p.m. UTC | #2 
On Wed, 28 Nov 2018, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:

> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 01:28:36 +0100, "Albert ARIBAUD (3ADEV)"
> <albert.aribaud@3adev.fr> wrote :
> 
> > This series introduces Y2038-proof struct tm related functions.
> 
> Any feeback on these patches apart from Paul's? If not, then I'll apply
> at least the first seven ones to master.

These patches clearly need actual review; they are not suitable for 
assuming consensus in the absence of feedback.

I'll note now that at least several of the proposed commit messages are 
insufficient (each commit message should say how that patch was tested - 
which should include at least one 32-bit and one 64-bit platform).