Date:	Mon, 17 Apr 2000 10:41:17 +0200 (WET)
From:	Andris Pavenis <pavenis AT lanet DOT lv>
To:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
cc:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: timezone files: the solution
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1000416102509.2482X-100000@is>
Message-ID:	<Pine.A41.4.05.10004171025310.67430-100000@ieva05.lanet.lv>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Sun, 16 Apr 2000, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> 
> On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 pavenis AT lanet DOT lv wrote:
> 
> > I'm getting broken djtzn203.zip also when building it under Linux (on 
> > ix86 of course)
> 
> x86 is not the issue here (the timezone files are
> endian-independent).  The question is: how does Linux define time_t?
> If it's a signed type, you will see the same problems as on Irix,
> because the timezone files are generated by zic compiled for the host,
> so it uses host's time_t.

Tested: glibc-2.1.3 defines time_t to 'long int'

> 
> (AFAIK, most libraries have a signed time_t; our implementation is
> an exception rather than the rule.)
> 
> > With new djtzn203.zip downloaded from ftp.cdrom.com:
> > 
> > C:\DJGPP\TEST\tz>tztest
> > Fri, 14 Apr 2000 17:57:58 +10800
> > Fri, 14 Apr 2000 17:57:58 EEST
> > 
> > C:\DJGPP\TEST\tz>set TZ=c:/djgpp/zoneinfo/Europe/Riga
> > 
> > C:\DJGPP\TEST\tz>tztest
> > Fri, 14 Apr 2000 17:58:05 +7200
> > Fri, 14 Apr 2000 17:58:05 EET
> > 
> > Which seems to be Ok.
> 
> Thanks for testing.
> 

One more comment:

In Linux (glibc-2.1.3) I got following output from the same test program:

Mon, 17 Apr 2000 10:32:14 +0200
Mon, 17 Apr 2000 10:32:14 EET

which is rather different from ones I'm getting with DJGPP. Which one 
is correct?

Andris

- Raw text -