On 6 January 2014 12:30, Karel Zak <kzak@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 09:42:43PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> that's a signed long type, so on 32bit systems, you get: >> cal: Year 1234567890123456789 ...cal: illegal year value: >> >> should the test detect the sizeof(long) and then calculate a number that is >> smaller than that ? > > It would be better to keep cal(1) arch insensitive. > > Sami, why we need so huge year numbers and why the number is signed? > I guess it would be enough to use "unsigned int" (UINT_MAX is 4294967295). Hi Mike & Karel, Year was left signed because someone said it might be interesting to know pre-year-zero outputs. After a bit research the pre-zero year calendars are theoretical construct, mostly because agreement in western world is not more than couple hundred years old. That means pre-zero calendar could only be considered as a what a modern western people think the calendar should have looked. Whether that is valuable, interesting, useful, etc is a different question. Meanwhile the big year test is clearly broken. I recon there should be a version for various sizes of INT_MAX tests, and depending how large values are supported by system corresponding tests are ran. -- Sami Kerola http://www.iki.fi/kerolasa/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe util-linux" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
