This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Fix p_secstodate overflow handling (bug 22463)
On Tue, 21 Nov 2017, Paul Eggert wrote:
> I reread the RFC, and found that our patches both mishandled out-of-range
> timestamps. The RFC says that, for a timestamp greater than the 32-bit range,
> the string should be a decimal representation of the timestamp's low-order 32
> bits. With this in mind we can simplify the fix since we need not worry about
Where does it say that? My reading is more that (a) the binary
representation is the low-order 32 bits; (b) a decimal representation of
the low-order 32-bits is valid as a textual representation, but (c) the
timestamp is to be interpreted as whatever time with that low-order
32-bits is within 68 years of the present, and so a YYYYMMDDHHmmSS
representation corresponds to that time.
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com