Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-Id:	<4.3.1.2.20020325093732.02319340@pop.ma.ultranet.com>
X-Sender:	lhall AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com
X-Mailer:	QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1
Date:	Mon, 25 Mar 2002 09:43:27 -0500
To:	Wu Yongwei <adah AT sh163 DOT net>,
	"Fleischer, Karsten (K.)" <kfleisc1 AT getrag-ford DOT com>
From:	"Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" <lhall AT rfk DOT com>
Subject:	Re: cygwin1.dll bug in ftime
Cc:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
In-Reply-To:	<3C9F21DF.DA6D8C71@sh163.net>
References:	<200203251251 DOT g2PCpY629291 AT dymwsm12 DOT mailwatch DOT com>
Mime-Version:	1.0

Sounds to me like Cygwin is SUS-compliant here to me.  Perhaps you'd get a
more sympathetic response if you posted code that does what you need, is 
itself SUS-compliant, and has trouble on Cygwin but not other SUS-compliant
platforms.  While it's always preferable that bug reports come with patches
for review, a simple, clear test case which shows the problem effectively is
the next best thing.  Sometimes it even prods someone else to fix the problem
you're seeing! ;-)

Just a thought,

Larry Hall                              lhall AT rfk DOT com
RFK Partners, Inc.                      http://www.rfk.com
838 Washington Street                   (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
Holliston, MA 01746                     (508) 893-9889 - FAX



At 08:10 AM 3/25/2002, Wu Yongwei wrote:
>Thank you for your suggestions. The points are:
>
>1) Cygwin did very well, but not now;
>
>2) I was not using ftime to get time, but to get timezone information.
>
>3) timezone variable is not usable in Cygwin.
>
>So timezone is now not portable. Cygwin broke some "unportable" code.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Wu Yongwei
>
>"Fleischer, Karsten (K.)" wrote:
> > 
> > > Also notes the usage of "unspecified". "Unspecified" means
> > > the standard does
> > > not say anything about the implementation, and, IMHO, the
> > > implementors are
> > > free to choose the best practices.
> > 
> > ... or to not implement anything at all.
> > 
> > > I think it is obviously a
> > > good way to
> > > follow BSD.
> > 
> > Possibly.
> > The better way for application developers is to follow the Single UNIX > Specification.
> > Any application relying on results that are explicitely marked as
> > "unspecified" in the SUS standard can be considered non-portable.
> > 
> > >From the SUSv3 documentation:
> > 
> > APPLICATION USAGE
> > For applications portability, the time() function should be used to
> > determine the current time instead of ftime().
> > 
> > Karsten
>
>--
>Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
>Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
>Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
>FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -