On Wed, 8 Mar 2017 09:47:15 -0800
Michael Forney <mforney_AT_mforney.org> wrote:
> I pushed a slightly amended version of this patch to my sbase branch at
> https://github.com/michaelforney/sbase/commit/4b13b23a689da5fc01c2a26affe8ad8087c777bf.
>
I am running into strange behavior in both this patch, as well as my last one.
I am pretty sure I tested it before, but I am not convinced I did so thoroughly.
When setting the date, sometimes the result is as expected, sometimes the
result is wildly off. I have run it through gdb. The broke down time seems to
be set as expected. When inspecting struct tm date in either my patch or this
one, I notice garbage values in parts of the tm struct that are not being
set. I have tried two methods for addressing: (1) zeroing the date variable with
memset and (2) declaring struct tm date as static. Both methods do the trick
and setting the date is consistent with input. I also considered explicitly
zeroing the members that are not touched, but since not all of them seem to be
required by posix, I thought that zeroing the whole struct made more sense.
Received on Thu Mar 09 2017 - 23:10:00 CET