Paul Eggert wrote:
> It is puzzling that Coverity complained only about tm_gmtoff, and not
> about other tm_1 members.
Indeed, it should/could have warned about tm_wday in the same way.
> However, the bottom line is that this is a
> false alarm and we needn't worry about it.
Thanks for having
On 2024-12-16 05:05, Bruno Haible wrote:
Today, coverity reports that in lib/time_rz.c line 303
"Field tm_1.tm_gmtoff is uninitialized."
Is it really uninitialized after the mktime() call in line 298?
Only if that mktime call failed, which is impossible if the call made
tm_yday nonnegative.
Hi Paul,
Today, coverity reports that in lib/time_rz.c line 303
"Field tm_1.tm_gmtoff is uninitialized."
Is it really uninitialized after the mktime() call in line 298?
Is it a problem if it is uninitialized?
Bruno
