On Mon, 11 Oct 2021, Paul Eggert wrote: > On 10/11/21 3:27 AM, Alejandro Colomar (man-pages) wrote: > > timegm(3) says that you should "avoid their use" because timegm(3) is a > > Linux and BSD extension, but its use can NOT be avoided (well, it can, but > > if not done very carefully, you are likely to introduce bugs due to > > setenv(3) not being thread-safe), so I'd remove that sentence from > > timegm(3). I think it should be in POSIX. > > No, NetBSD's mktime_z should be in POSIX, as it nicely generalizes both mktime > and timegm. Arguably ISO C (there's no obvious dependence on any concepts that are in scope of POSIX but not of ISO C), but we're now past the deadline to request document numbers for proposals to C23 (and while there's a proposal to add timegm, there's no proposal to add functions using explicit time zones). -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
