From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <libc-alpha-return-93267-listarch-libc-alpha=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 9950 invoked by alias); 14 Jun 2018 17:52:00 -0000
Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <libc-alpha.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:libc-alpha-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/>
List-Post: <mailto:libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 9799 invoked by uid 89); 14 Jun 2018 17:51:59 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=felt
X-HELO: smtp6-g21.free.fr
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 17:52:00 -0000
From: Albert ARIBAUD <albert.aribaud@3adev.fr>
To: Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu>
Cc: libc-alpha@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] Y2038: make __tz_convert compatible with
 64-bit-time
Message-ID: <20180614195149.60f6114d@athena>
In-Reply-To: <de6545e4-530a-8fa8-f980-d2d1b5d996bb@cs.ucla.edu>
References: <20180614135116.8767-1-albert.aribaud@3adev.fr>
	<20180614135116.8767-3-albert.aribaud@3adev.fr>
	<de6545e4-530a-8fa8-f980-d2d1b5d996bb@cs.ucla.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-SW-Source: 2018-06/txt/msg00421.txt.bz2

Hi Paul,

On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 10:07:18 -0700, Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu>
wrote :

> On 06/14/2018 06:51 AM, Albert ARIBAUD (3ADEV) wrote:
> > +#if __TIMESIZE =3D=3D 64
> > +# define __ctime64 ctime
> > +# define __ctime64_r ctime_r
> > +#endif
> > +
> > +#if __TIMESIZE =3D=3D 64
> > +# define __localtime64 localtime
> > +#else
> > +extern struct tm *__localtime64 (const __time64_t *__timer);
> > +#endif=20=20
>=20
> These don't seem symmetric. Why don't we need an extern declaration for=20
> __ctime_64 or for __ctime_64_r? If the code is correct, maybe a comment w=
hy?
=20
The asymmetry (that ctime and ctime_r are only declared in time/time.h
whereas localtime, localtime_r, gmtime and gmtime_r are declared both in
include/time.h as well as time/time.h) existed before my patches, and I
do not know the reason.

I felt I should not add declarations for ctime / ctime_r in
include/time as obviously glibc builds fine without these, and my
patches are not about adding 32-bit declarations but about adding
64-bit support.

However, I can add them if requested.

> > +#if (__TIMESIZE !=3D 64)=20=20
> No parentheses here (and similarly elsewhere).

Fixed everywhere.

> +/* The C Standard says ctime (t) is equivalent to asctime (localtime (t)=
).
> +=C2=A0=C2=A0 In particular, ctime and asctime must yield the same pointe=
r. */
> +=C2=A0 return asctime (__localtime64 (t));
>=20
> Please indent the comment to be like what it was before.

Done.

> Otherwise looks good; thanks.

Thanks to you for the reviews!

Cordialement,
Albert ARIBAUD
3ADEV