Jeff King writes:
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 12:21:33PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> >> > + if (date_overflows(date))
>> >> > + date = 0;
>> >> > + else {
>> >> > + if (ident->tz_begin && ident->tz_end)
>> >> > + tz = strtol(ident-
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 12:21:33PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >> > +if (date_overflows(date))
> >> > +date = 0;
> >> > +else {
> >> > +if (ident->tz_begin && ident->tz_end)
> >> > +tz = strtol(ident->tz_begin, NULL, 10);
>
Jeff King writes:
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 11:50:00AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> > We also recognize overflow in the timezone field, which
>> > could produce nonsensical results. In this case we show the
>> > parsed date, but in UTC.
>>
>> Both are good measures to fallback to sanity, bu
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 11:50:00AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > We also recognize overflow in the timezone field, which
> > could produce nonsensical results. In this case we show the
> > parsed date, but in UTC.
>
> Both are good measures to fallback to sanity, but why is that
> if/else? In
Jeff King writes:
> If an ident line has a ridiculous date value like (2^64)+1,
> we currently just pass ULONG_MAX along to the date code,
> which can produce nonsensical dates.
>
> On systems with a signed long time_t (e.g., 64-bit glibc
> systems), this actually doesn't end up too bad. The
> UL
If an ident line has a ridiculous date value like (2^64)+1,
we currently just pass ULONG_MAX along to the date code,
which can produce nonsensical dates.
On systems with a signed long time_t (e.g., 64-bit glibc
systems), this actually doesn't end up too bad. The
ULONG_MAX is converted to -1, we ap
6 matches
Mail list logo
