On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Rainer Zocholl (RZ) wrote:
RZ> Sergei.Haller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx(Sergei Haller) 02.06.05 11:56
RZ>
RZ> >they could have implemented a thing like
RZ>
RZ> > date -d "946684800"
RZ>
RZ> >THEN it would be intended.
RZ>
RZ> but when one uses 2000-01-01 (to save bits) as epoch he lost?
???
RZ>
RZ> Yes, if everybody uses 1970-01-01 as base.
that's part of the definition of time_t.
RZ> It'll last not very long anymore and many many unix may crash
RZ> because the systemtime in seconds "wraps"..
that's a completely different problem. unrelated to VDR too.
RZ> Compared to this the Y2K problem was just a joke, because mainly
RZ> a "display" problem,
no, Y2K wasn't just a "display" problem, but again, this is OT.
back to your original question:
yes, VDR computes the time_t values correctly,
as, I think, I was able to show using "time" and "date" in
my first post in this thread.
c ya,
Sergei
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------- -?)
eMail: Sergei.Haller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx /\\
-------------------------------------------------------------------- _\_V
Be careful of reading health books, you might die of a misprint.
-- Mark Twain
