Lukas Straub <lukasstraub2@xxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 13:16:45 +0200
> Florian Westphal <fw@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Lukas Straub <lukasstraub2@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Hmm, after staring at the code for a bit. I could imagine it's due to
> > > time_t being 32 bit on my platform and nftables trying to stuff a unix
> > > timstamp with nanosecond resolution in it...
> >
> > Will you send a patch?
>
> Yes, I already sent one. The mailing list seems to be a bit flacky, did
> you get it?
No, but its in patchwork. Patch gives following warning:
meta.c:449:56: warning: comparison of integer expressions of different
signedness: 'uint64_t' {aka 'long unsigned int'} and 'int' [-Wsign-compare]
449 | if ((tstamp = parse_iso_date(sym->identifier)) != -1)
Would you mind sending a v2?
I'd suggest to change parse_iso_date() to split return value and
converted value, for example:
static time_t parse_iso_date(const char *sym)
->
static bool parse_iso_data(uint64_t *res, const char *sym)
or similar.
