X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.7 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Message-ID: <4DF901FC.8080901@cs.umass.edu>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 15:03:24 -0400
From: Eliot Moss <moss AT cs DOT umass DOT edu>
Reply-To: moss AT cs DOT umass DOT edu
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: localtime
References: <4DF8CF3D DOT 40104 AT gmail DOT com> <4DF8EA79 DOT 2060404 AT gmail DOT com> <20110615173847 DOT GB23078 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <4DF8EF9F DOT 4090906 AT gmail DOT com> <20110615174805 DOT GC23078 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <4DF8F426 DOT 7040705 AT gmail DOT com>
In-Reply-To: <4DF8F426.7040705@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/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

On 6/15/2011 2:04 PM, Tod wrote:
> On 06/15/2011 1:48 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 01:45:03PM -0400, Tod wrote:
>>> On 06/15/2011 1:38 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 01:23:05PM -0400, Tod wrote:
>>>>> On 06/15/2011 11:26 AM, Tod wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Has anything change in regards to the C localtime function since 2007?
>>>>>> I've got a program with a function that uses it to present the date and
>>>>>> time that I just changed. The time isn't appearing only the date.

strlen is based on the current contents of the array ... it stops
at the first null. So it's certainly possible that you will truncate
output.  sizeof would indeed be more appropriate, since you care
about how much space you have available, not where the next null
byte is in memory ...

Best -- Eliot Moss

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple