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
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 09:00:15 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Cc: adah AT netstd DOT com
Subject: Re: cygwin1.dll bug in ftime
Message-ID: <20020326140015.GH3228@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com, adah AT netstd DOT com
References: <000301c1d4cc$156a7600$1021a53d AT chiway>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <000301c1d4cc$156a7600$1021a53d@chiway>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i

On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 09:41:11PM +0800, Wu Yongwei wrote:
>Glibc is at least an important implementation. Don't we need compatibility?

No.  Why are you asking this question again?

Didn't you actually quote the linux man page which says not to use the
second argument in gettimeofday?

    "The use of the timezone struct is obsolete; the tz_dsttime field has
    never been used under Linux - it has not been and will not be supported
    by libc or glibc.  Each and every occurrence of this field in the
    kernel source (other than the declaration) is a bug."

>Note that my quotation says about "the GNU operating system", and even at
>that time gettimeofday should return -1 and set errno. Cygwin does not do
>it.

Nor, should it.  Linux doesn't either.  You could easily check this before
offering opinions on implementation.

>I wrote the patch. I argue for its legitimacy. In fact, it is scroll-back. I
>just (mostly) picked code from an old version.

I have twice suggested that you submit a patch.  There is no need to argue
about anything.

>Maybe I am wrong to say "obvious". However, is following a way that breaks
>less code a worse way? If following BSD does not harm anybody and keep more
>code happily running, WHY NOT?

Apparently, you like to argue but don't like to read too closely.  I already
suggested that you submit a patch but it took several messages for you to
do that.  Now, you've submitted a patch but you're still offering invalid
arguments about the way things should work.

Just give it a rest.

Oh, by the way, as usual, I would appreciate a ChangeLog with your
patch.  One goal in submitting patches is to reduce the workload of the
person reviewing it as much as possible so that it would be reviewed
quickly.  See http://cygwin.com/contrib.html .

cgf

--
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/