Re: [PATCH] Add timegm POSIX call

[Corinna Vinschen <vinschen at redhat dot com>]

On Aug 14 12:49, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 10:42 AM, Corinna Vinschen <vinschen@redhat.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > On Aug 13 18:17, Andrew Russell via newlib wrote:
> > > >From e182faa79c35984b667029ef7b6e4a8ce7329897 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > > From: Andrew Russell <ahrussell@google.com>
> > > Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2018 12:14:18 -0700
> > > Subject: [PATCH 1/4] Start of mktime.c copy to timegm.c
> > >
> > > I am proposing to add the timegm POSIX call to
> > > Newlib. Part of this refactors some of the code in libc/time/local.h and
> > > libc/time/mktime.c, per this discussion:
> > >
> > > https://sourceware.org/ml/newlib/2018/msg00186.html
> >
> > I'm looking for comments from other (non-Cygwin) devs here.
> >
> 
> >From my perspective, I don't mind having common methods that
> are not in libc or POSIX in newlib or RTEMS. Ultimately, the wider
> set of methods makes packages easier to port.
> 
> I would ask that the method is documented using the newlib markup
> and that its historical origin is noted. The Linux man page is clearly
> discouraging:
> 
> CONFORMING TO
>        These functions are nonstandard GNU extensions that are also present
> on
>        the BSDs.  Avoid their use; see NOTES.
> 
> But overall, improving cross-platform compatibility is good even
> when it means adding extensions that have no impact when not
> used.
> 
> --joel

The new functions are ok to go in, I was more interested in people
testing the code.  Sorry if I was unclear!


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen
Cygwin Maintainer
Red Hat

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature