[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [Bug-gnulib] getdate.y question

From: Jim.Hyslop
Subject: RE: [Bug-gnulib] getdate.y question
Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 09:35:27 -0400

Derek Robert Price wrote:
> I'm not sure whether the correct fix would be some sort of overflow
> checking in getdate.y (though I worry that this solution would end up
> duplicating much of the same code from mktime() that we wish to avoid
> duplicating), or the implementation of some sort of "overflow
> converted" return value from mktime(), or perhaps even a new argument
> to mktime() to force strict overflow checks (more likely a new
> mktime_strict() function which could wrap and share an internal
> function with mktime(), to prevent changing the mktime() interface),

The last option seems to be the best, IMO. Refactor the functionality out of
mktime into a separate function, say mktime_checked, which accepts an
additional boolean parameter, say allow_overflow.

If allow_overflow is TRUE, the function behaves exactly as mktime does
currently. If allow_overflow is FALSE, then the function will return an
error if any of the date values are invalid.

mktime passes FALSE, and getdate() passes TRUE.

Jim Hyslop
Senior Software Designer
Leitch Technology International Inc. (http://www.leitch.com)
Columnist, C/C++ Users Journal (http://www.cuj.com/experts)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]