| From: | Kurt Roeckx <Q(at)ping(dot)be> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Claudio Natoli <claudio(dot)natoli(at)memetrics(dot)com>, "'pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "'pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Pre-1970 dates under Win32 |
| Date: | 2004-02-02 07:37:37 |
| Message-ID: | 20040202073737.GA30929@ping.be |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-hackers-win32 |
On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 01:57:15AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Claudio Natoli <claudio(dot)natoli(at)memetrics(dot)com> writes:
> > Under Win32, localtime returns NULL for dates pre 1970.
>
> Count on Microsloth to get it wrong :-(
I had a discussion about time_t some weeks ago. There is nothing
in the standard that says time_t must be a signed, all it says is
that (time_t)(-1) represents an invalid value.
There are other OS's that have an unsigned time_t.
Kurt
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2004-02-02 07:50:39 | pg_stat_activity |
| Previous Message | Claudio Natoli | 2004-02-02 07:27:33 | Re: [HACKERS] Pre-1970 dates under Win32 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-02-02 08:08:05 | Re: [HACKERS] Pre-1970 dates under Win32 |
| Previous Message | Claudio Natoli | 2004-02-02 07:27:33 | Re: [HACKERS] Pre-1970 dates under Win32 |