On 12/13/2009 11:10 PM, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 10:57:24PM +0100, David Kubicek wrote:
This is the first time I've seen this, though, and I use strptime()
often in my SW, mostly for timestamps which would be discovered by
people rather quickly! :) Are you sure you're not usi
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 10:57:24PM +0100, David Kubicek wrote:
>>> Thanks, all, for helping me. Sorry for wasting your time.
>>
>> FYI:
>> http://git.gnome.org/cgit/glib/commit/?id=2321e5aed07154761223bb124770beba56700e41
>>
>
> New development, I see. :)
>
> You know, struct tm doesn't need to be
On 12/13/2009 10:54 PM, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 10:14:11PM +0100, David Kubicek wrote:
If/when you find a solution, send it here for other people who might
google for the same issue, but I from your description it's a libc bug.
Here's the solution:
http://lists.debian.org
On 12/13/2009 09:53 PM, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 02:47:38PM -0600, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
OK, there's a bug in your program:
#include
#include
int main(void) {
char *iso_date = "2009-12-11T2:50:00";
struct tm tm; /*<- NOT INITIALIZED! */
time_t time;
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 10:14:11PM +0100, David Kubicek wrote:
> If/when you find a solution, send it here for other people who might
> google for the same issue, but I from your description it's a libc bug.
Here's the solution:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2009/12/msg00797.html
http://l
On 12/13/2009 08:47 PM, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 08:16:21PM +0100, David Kubicek wrote:
OK, where do I move next? :-) Especially given that these things don't
happen in a fresh sid chroot, I am really wondering what unearthly
configuration option could be causing this.
OK,
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 02:47:38PM -0600, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
> OK, there's a bug in your program:
>
> #include
> #include
>
> int main(void) {
> char *iso_date = "2009-12-11T2:50:00";
> struct tm tm; /* <- NOT INITIALIZED! */
> time_t time;
>
> strptime(iso_date, "%FT
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 01:47:08PM -0600, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
> > If that doesn't help, try posix-in-loop test from single-user mode. Make
> > sure no other processes are running.
>
> I've checked, and the same thing happens.
>
> > I'm not aware of any configuration which could cause this (exc
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 02:16:57PM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> Kumar writes:
> > The strange thing is, in gdb, it always gives me
> > 1260521400. Consistently.
>
> Pointer bug.
I am unsure where to look for the pointer. I'll try, though.
Thanks.
Kumar
--
"Never make any mistaeks."
(Anonymous,
Kumar writes:
> The strange thing is, in gdb, it always gives me
> 1260521400. Consistently.
Pointer bug.
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 08:16:21PM +0100, David Kubicek wrote:
>> OK, where do I move next? :-) Especially given that these things don't
>> happen in a fresh sid chroot, I am really wondering what unearthly
>> configuration option could be causing this.
>
> OK, this is now officially insane. I have
On 12/13/2009 07:50 PM, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 07:39:31PM +0100, David Kubicek wrote:
# export TZ=Europe/Prague
# for i in `seq 1 20`; do ./posix; date; done
1260496200
Sun Dec 13 19:04:24 CET 2009
...
(Note: 2600 vs. 6200):
[ku...@bluemoon ~] for i in `seq 1 10`;do TZ=Eu
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 07:39:31PM +0100, David Kubicek wrote:
> The POSIX variant result would be important - it would tell us it's not
> Glib related. There would be less stuff to check with just libc/tzdata.
Right.
> BUT, I made a typo in posix.c, which *could* in effect randomize the
> "z
On 12/13/2009 06:47 PM, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
When we're sure relevant libraries are OK, we can explore other
possibilities if the issue persists. I doubt it will after this action,
unless, of course, you have some very peculiar configuration I cannot
imagine somewhere. :)
Once I reinstall the a
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 06:14:41PM +0100, David Kubicek wrote:
> It may be your glib, but you didn't say if this also happens when using
> just POSIX API (basic libc). If it's affected too, your system is borked
> on a lower level. What you report is impossible unless there is a
> serious bug
On 12/13/2009 04:51 PM, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 04:25:22PM +0100, Torben Keil wrote:
I have a weird time-zone related issue on my machine. [...]
A user on my workplace reported me similar problem with the time-zone in
SuSE 11.1. I just had the current NVIDIA-driver install
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 04:25:22PM +0100, Torben Keil wrote:
> > I have a weird time-zone related issue on my machine. [...]
>
> A user on my workplace reported me similar problem with the time-zone in
> SuSE 11.1. I just had the current NVIDIA-driver installed (190.X) and after
> a quater hour th
Hi Kumar,
Kumar Appaiah wrote:
> Dear Debian user,
>
> I have a weird time-zone related issue on my machine. [...]
A user on my workplace reported me similar problem with the time-zone in
SuSE 11.1. I just had the current NVIDIA-driver installed (190.X) and after
a quater hour the user reported
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 08:31:41PM +, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 03:25:05AM -0600, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
> > Dear Debian user,
> >
> > I have a weird time-zone related issue on my machine. I observed that
> > the "alarm-clock" package was always ignoring my requests for an a
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 03:25:05AM -0600, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
> Dear Debian user,
>
> I have a weird time-zone related issue on my machine. I observed that
> the "alarm-clock" package was always ignoring my requests for an alarm
> within an hour from now, and all other alarms used to go off with
20 matches
Mail list logo
