Đoàn Trần Công Danh <congdanhqx@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> In a later patch, we will reuse this logic, move it to a helper, now.
>
> While we're at it, explicit states that we intentionally ignore
"explicitly state", perhaps.
> old-and-defective 2nd leap second.
>
> Signed-off-by: Đoàn Trần Công Danh <congdanhqx@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> date.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/date.c b/date.c
> index b67c5abe24..f5d5a91208 100644
> --- a/date.c
> +++ b/date.c
> @@ -539,6 +539,22 @@ static int set_date(int year, int month, int day, struct tm *now_tm, time_t now,
> return -1;
> }
>
> +static int set_time(long hour, long minute, long second, struct tm *tm)
> +{
> + /* C90 and old POSIX accepts 2 leap seconds, it's a defect,
> + * ignore second number 61
> + */
/*
* Style: our multi-line comments ought to be
* formatted like this. Slash-asterisk that opens,
* and asterisk-slash that closes, are both on their
* own lines.
*/
But I am not sure we want to even have a new comment here. After
all we are extracting/reinventing exactly the same logic as the
original. Why we allow "60" might be worth commenting, but if a
minute that has 62 seconds is a mere historical curiosity, then is
it worth explaining why "61", which we never even wrote in the code,
is missing from here?
> + if (0 <= hour && hour <= 24 &&
> + 0 <= minute && minute < 60 &&
> + 0 <= second && second <= 60) {
> + tm->tm_hour = hour;
> + tm->tm_min = minute;
> + tm->tm_sec = second;
> + return 0;
> + }
> + return -1;
> +}
I am a bit surprised to see that you chose to unify with the "check
and set" interface of is_date (now set_date). I was expecting to
see that we'd have "check-only" helper functions.
This is not a complaint, at least not yet until we see the result of
using it in new code; it may very well be possible that the "check
and set" interface would make the new caller(s) clearer.
> static int match_multi_number(timestamp_t num, char c, const char *date,
> char *end, struct tm *tm, time_t now)
> {
> @@ -556,12 +572,8 @@ static int match_multi_number(timestamp_t num, char c, const char *date,
> case ':':
> if (num3 < 0)
> num3 = 0;
> - if (num < 25 && num2 >= 0 && num2 < 60 && num3 >= 0 && num3 <= 60) {
> - tm->tm_hour = num;
> - tm->tm_min = num2;
> - tm->tm_sec = num3;
> + if (set_time(num, num2, num3, tm) == 0)
> break;
> - }
> return 0;
This caller does become easier to follow, I would say. Nicely done.
> case '-':
