Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Bug #630: date/time storage problem: timestamp parsed

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Sean Chittenden <sean(at)chittenden(dot)org>
Cc: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org>,pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Bug #630: date/time storage problem: timestamp parsed
Date: 2002-04-10 05:01:42
Message-ID: 1676.1018414902@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs
Sean Chittenden <sean(at)chittenden(dot)org> writes:
> Ehh... let me hack/check.  Looks like 11.  ??  In
> lib/libc/stdtime/localtime.c, WRONG is defined as -1, not 11.

> 1490                    t = mktime(tmp);
> (gdb) 
> 1491                    fprintf(stderr, "%p\n", t);  /* GCC optimizes this
>                                                         away if I don't do
> 							something */
> (gdb) 
> 0x3c5e5ba0
> (gdb) print t
> $1 = 11

> Doesn't make much sense to me where that'd come from...  ? -sc

I'd be inclined to believe the 0x3c5e5ba0 (= Mon Feb 04 2002, 05:00:00
EST according to my local time code) and not the 11.  I think gdb is
dropping the ball here; most likely, failing to warn you that the
register that once held t wasn't preserved over the fprintf function
call.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Sean ChittendenDate: 2002-04-10 06:13:20
Subject: Re: Bug #630: date/time storage problem: timestamp parsed
Previous:From: Sean ChittendenDate: 2002-04-10 04:44:42
Subject: Re: Bug #630: date/time storage problem: timestamp parsed

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group