Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 09:13:01 +0200 (MET DST) From: J Wunsch <j@uriah.heep.sax.de> To: sjr@zombie.ncsc.mil Cc: freebsd-bugs@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: misc/1380: Year 2000 breakage with tm_year Message-ID: <199607110713.JAA14194@uriah.heep.sax.de> In-Reply-To: <199607110200.TAA05744@freefall.freebsd.org> from "Stephen J. Roznowski" at "Jul 10, 96 07:00:01 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As Stephen J. Roznowski wrote: > > > reply(213, > > > ! "%04d%02d%02d%02d%02d%02d", > > > ! 1900+t->tm_year, t->tm_mon+1, t->tm_mday, > > > > Isn't there a TM_YEAR_BASE symbol defined somewhere that should > > be used instead of a hardcoded 1900? > > When I submitted my original changes to NetBSD, I used that symbol; > however, according to "J.T. Conklin <jtc@NetBSD.ORG>" the definition > of the tm_year field is "years since 1900" according to Standard C. > [and not years since TM_YEAR_BASE] This is right (and points out the sillyness of the standard -- year 2012 will be encoded as 112 then). Anyway, TM_YEAR_BASE is what our library uses when computing this field, so it's safe to also use it for the reverse calculation. In effect, the ANSI C standard mandates that TM_YEAR_BASE will always remain at 1900. -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199607110713.JAA14194>