From owner-freebsd-bugs  Mon Aug 14 13:52:59 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org
Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.ORG [204.216.27.21])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id BAC3237B541; Mon, 14 Aug 2000 13:52:56 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from brian@FreeBSD.org)
Received: (from brian@localhost)
	by freefall.freebsd.org (8.9.3/8.9.2) id NAA06956;
	Mon, 14 Aug 2000 13:52:56 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from brian@FreeBSD.org)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 13:52:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: <brian@FreeBSD.org>
Message-Id: <200008142052.NAA06956@freefall.freebsd.org>
To: andre.albsmeier@mchp.siemens.de, brian@FreeBSD.org,
	freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: bin/15520: mktime() fails under certain conditions
Sender: owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

Synopsis: mktime() fails under certain conditions

State-Changed-From-To: open->closed
State-Changed-By: brian
State-Changed-When: Mon Aug 14 13:47:04 PDT 2000
State-Changed-Why: 
I (and many others) believe that it is more correct to return an error
from mktime() when it's asked to construct a time from some time that
can't happen.

Others belive that mktime() should succeed during leap-periods.

POSIX (I'm told) doesn't specify either.

IMHO this is therefore a non-issue.  FreeBSD's mktime() returns
an error and will stay that way.

http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=15520


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message