On 06/20/2012 10:43 AM, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Has this test worked on any 32-bit time_t machines?
Sure, lots.
> 190112132045.51 return value mismatch: got 0, expected 1
>
> and that time corresponds to (time_t) -1. Any ideas?
That time is corresponds to -2147483649
(i.e., -2**31 - 1), not to -1.
On a host with 32-bit signed time_t, that test
case should be filtered out by this code:
if (! (TYPE_MINIMUM (time_t) <= T[i].t_expected
&& T[i].t_expected <= TYPE_MAXIMUM (time_t)))
{
printf ("skipping %s: result is out of range of your time_t\n",
T[i].in);
continue;
}
because TYPE_MINIMUM (time_t) should evaluate to
-2**31, which is greater than -2**31 - 1.
Conversely, that filter did *not* work for
190112132045.52 (i.e., -2**31), as it complained
that the result is out of your time_t range, but
it is in range.
Can you debug the program to see why the filter isn't
working? Perhaps disassemble it? I wouldn't be surprised
if it were a compiler bug.
