Re: [Outreachy][PATCH 1/2] date: refactor 64 bit prereq code into reusable functions

From: Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com>
Date: Feb 6, 2024, 08:39 UTC
Message-ID: <CAP8UFD2pJOU7sAWROENcK+8g5J0oZpXPeQ9UOh5CwS+CvVpx=Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <020a01da5859$89e41210$9dac3630$@nexbridge.com>

On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 6:34 PM <rsbecker@nexbridge.com> wrote:

> On Monday, February 5, 2024 11:25 AM, Achu Luma wrote:

Show 5 quoted lines

> I would suggest that you also take into account whether time_t is signed or
> not (more difficult perhaps). Some platforms use signed time_t to allow
> representation of dates prior to 1970-01-01, while others make this signed.
> Some other platforms (S/390 for example) have retained time_t as 32-bits but
> have a time64_t for 64 bits. It might be useful to account for this.

The goal of this small series is just to port some existing tests to the new unit test framework. I think it's a different topic to improve the existing tests to take into account whether time_t is signed or not. But thanks for the info.