Message-Id: <199709032156.RAA01934@delorie.com>
From: Oberhumer Markus <k3040e4 AT c210 DOT edvz DOT uni-linz DOT ac DOT at>
Subject: Re: 970831: mktime()
To: dj AT delorie DOT com (DJ Delorie)
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 23:50:31 +0200 (METDST)
Cc: k3040e4 AT c210 DOT edvz DOT uni-linz DOT ac DOT at, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-Reply-To: <199709031243.IAA01031@delorie.com> from "DJ Delorie" at Sep 3, 97 08:43:01 am
Return-Read-To: markus DOT oberhumer AT jk DOT uni-linz DOT ac DOT at
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

> Why have a separate function?  Why not just fix mktime() and let
> everyone benefit?

Because your last message says...

> mktime() "fix" for dates within a daylight savings time change (i.e.
> two possible time_t results): I think that this *is* an error, and
> mktime should return -1.  However, the original problem still exists: