Hi Bruno,
Le Thu, 05 Jul 2018 23:17:26 +0200, Bruno Haible a
écrit :
> Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> > I was under the impression that you wanted the
> > 64-bit-time stuff to go in gnulib before it went in glibc, so I don't
> > get what the "once glibc has such a macro" means. Can you elaborate on
> >
Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> I was under the impression that you wanted the
> 64-bit-time stuff to go in gnulib before it went in glibc, so I don't
> get what the "once glibc has such a macro" means. Can you elaborate on
> what you had in mind?
I can't speak for Paul, but for me the sequence of steps t
Hi,
> I have had a look at gnulib in the meantime, and I would like to know
> if the following assumptions are correct:
>
> - gnulib contains a year2038 module which is only intended to check
> whether time_t is limited to Y2038 or not.
Yes and no.
Yes, gnulib contains a year2038 module [1][2
Hi Paul,
On Thu, 5 Jul 2018 12:40:07 -0700, Paul Eggert
wrote :
> Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> > I would like to know
> > if the following assumptions are correct:
> >
> > - gnulib contains a year2038 module which is only intended to check
> >whether time_t is limited to Y2038 or not.
>
> Alt
Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
Since gnulib is on Savannah, not Sourceware, I assume I will need to be
given some level of write access to the Savannah gnulib repository in
order to provide branches there too, similar to what is done in glibc.
For something this small, I suggest just posting a proposed
Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
I would like to know
if the following assumptions are correct:
- gnulib contains a year2038 module which is only intended to check
whether time_t is limited to Y2038 or not.
Although true for now, in the long run year2038 could be changed to enable
macros that will ca
On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 2:36 PM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> I have had a look at gnulib in the meantime, and I would like to know
> if the following assumptions are correct:
I can't comment on anything else at all, but:
> - gnulib does not contain any module which provides the time_t type, but
> s
Hello all,
On Wed, 27 Jun 2018 13:03:42 +0200, Albert ARIBAUD
wrote :
> Hi Paul,
>
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2018 16:56:14 -0700, Paul Eggert
> wrote :
>
> > On 06/25/2018 03:32 PM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> > > I replaced the original 32-bit difftime with a wrapper
> > > around the 64-bit time; and i
On 07/04/2018 04:26 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 07/04/2018 10:13 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> This is a good suggestion, and I think Florian should work on
>> something going into the manual to document the behaviour.
>
> We do not have any documentation for the *at functions at present. I
>
