October 2021 - tz - lists.iana.org

(no subject)
by Cool Gab19 05 Sep '24

05 Sep '24

can you add Philippine Daylight Time on your Database I think it was missing from the list of the time zones please reply immediately if solved thanks...

4 7

Re: [tz] Morocco : Ramdan Time Change 2021
by Paul Eggert 15 Mar '23

15 Mar '23

On 3/19/21 3:15 AM, Semlali Naoufal wrote: > At the moment, we have no official government announcement to this effect. But, logically, the change to the GMT schedule should be made on the night of April 10-11, 2021 (last weekend before Ramadan). Yes, that's been the tzdb prediction too, ever since tzdb version 2018h (2018-12-23). For the record, here are tzdb's current predictions Morocco transitions during the next five years. Sun Apr 11 01:59:59 2021 UT = Sun Apr 11 02:59:59 2021 +01 Sun Apr 11 02:00:00 2021 UT = Sun Apr 11 02:00:00 2021 +00 Sun May 16 01:59:59 2021 UT = Sun May 16 01:59:59 2021 +00 Sun May 16 02:00:00 2021 UT = Sun May 16 03:00:00 2021 +01 Sun Mar 27 01:59:59 2022 UT = Sun Mar 27 02:59:59 2022 +01 Sun Mar 27 02:00:00 2022 UT = Sun Mar 27 02:00:00 2022 +00 Sun May 8 01:59:59 2022 UT = Sun May 8 01:59:59 2022 +00 Sun May 8 02:00:00 2022 UT = Sun May 8 03:00:00 2022 +01 Sun Mar 19 01:59:59 2023 UT = Sun Mar 19 02:59:59 2023 +01 Sun Mar 19 02:00:00 2023 UT = Sun Mar 19 02:00:00 2023 +00 Sun Apr 30 01:59:59 2023 UT = Sun Apr 30 01:59:59 2023 +00 Sun Apr 30 02:00:00 2023 UT = Sun Apr 30 03:00:00 2023 +01 Sun Mar 10 01:59:59 2024 UT = Sun Mar 10 02:59:59 2024 +01 Sun Mar 10 02:00:00 2024 UT = Sun Mar 10 02:00:00 2024 +00 Sun Apr 14 01:59:59 2024 UT = Sun Apr 14 01:59:59 2024 +00 Sun Apr 14 02:00:00 2024 UT = Sun Apr 14 03:00:00 2024 +01 Sun Feb 23 01:59:59 2025 UT = Sun Feb 23 02:59:59 2025 +01 Sun Feb 23 02:00:00 2025 UT = Sun Feb 23 02:00:00 2025 +00 Sun Apr 6 01:59:59 2025 UT = Sun Apr 6 01:59:59 2025 +00 Sun Apr 6 02:00:00 2025 UT = Sun Apr 6 03:00:00 2025 +01 Sun Feb 15 01:59:59 2026 UT = Sun Feb 15 02:59:59 2026 +01 Sun Feb 15 02:00:00 2026 UT = Sun Feb 15 02:00:00 2026 +00 Sun Mar 22 01:59:59 2026 UT = Sun Mar 22 01:59:59 2026 +00 Sun Mar 22 02:00:00 2026 UT = Sun Mar 22 03:00:00 2026 +01 Sun Feb 7 01:59:59 2027 UT = Sun Feb 7 02:59:59 2027 +01 Sun Feb 7 02:00:00 2027 UT = Sun Feb 7 02:00:00 2027 +00 Sun Mar 14 01:59:59 2027 UT = Sun Mar 14 01:59:59 2027 +00 Sun Mar 14 02:00:00 2027 UT = Sun Mar 14 03:00:00 2027 +01 Sun Jan 23 01:59:59 2028 UT = Sun Jan 23 02:59:59 2028 +01 Sun Jan 23 02:00:00 2028 UT = Sun Jan 23 02:00:00 2028 +00 Sun Mar 5 01:59:59 2028 UT = Sun Mar 5 01:59:59 2028 +00 Sun Mar 5 02:00:00 2028 UT = Sun Mar 5 03:00:00 2028 +01 Sun Jan 14 01:59:59 2029 UT = Sun Jan 14 02:59:59 2029 +01 Sun Jan 14 02:00:00 2029 UT = Sun Jan 14 02:00:00 2029 +00 Sun Feb 18 01:59:59 2029 UT = Sun Feb 18 01:59:59 2029 +00 Sun Feb 18 02:00:00 2029 UT = Sun Feb 18 03:00:00 2029 +01 Sun Dec 30 01:59:59 2029 UT = Sun Dec 30 02:59:59 2029 +01 Sun Dec 30 02:00:00 2029 UT = Sun Dec 30 02:00:00 2029 +00 Sun Feb 10 01:59:59 2030 UT = Sun Feb 10 01:59:59 2030 +00 Sun Feb 10 02:00:00 2030 UT = Sun Feb 10 03:00:00 2030 +01 Sun Dec 22 01:59:59 2030 UT = Sun Dec 22 02:59:59 2030 +01 Sun Dec 22 02:00:00 2030 UT = Sun Dec 22 02:00:00 2030 +00

3 9

United States Senate reintroduced Sunshine Protection Act, enabling Permanent DST
by Phake Nick 14 Nov '22

14 Nov '22

I don't quite understand the legal text of the bill itself [2], but according to my reading, it seems like the bill will end DST across the entire US by shifting the standard time forward an hour, except in states/territories/area that currently doesn't enact DST, which they can choose to follow the new standard time or old standard time? 1: https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2021/3/rubio-colleagues-reint… 2: https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/d34c77c0-acea-4074-bc57-14…

18 26

Re: [tz] iana build failures on Windows
by Paul Eggert 02 Nov '22

02 Nov '22

On 4/19/21 7:09 AM, Manuela Friedrich wrote: > I had to include signal.h in zic.c to prevent the following error: > > zic.c(610): error C2061: syntax error: identifier 'got_signal' This is a portability bug recently introduced to zic.c. I installed the first attached patch to fix it. > The I needed to resolved error > > zic.obj : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol tz_time referenced in function random_dirent This appears to be another recent portability bug. It's related to a portability problem you reported on MS-Windows in response to which in 2018d I committed a patch that introduced RESERVE_STD_EXT_IDS: https://github.com/eggert/tz/commit/24b45243c5210b4196987fdd06e6c288c358a268 When I recently added the randomish filename code to the development version, I neglected to deal with RESERVE_STD_EXT_IDS. The second attached patch should fix this issue. Please give the two patches a try, as I don't use MS-Windows and can't easily test these patches on that platform. > a test run of zdump -v produced way more output than in the last release, the Linux output seems to have become longer too, but maybe this is still under development. That change is intentional, and was caused by this: https://github.com/eggert/tz/commit/ac07b446a3afaa4cb1ae11a91785a201c91f6351 along with some neighboring commits. Thanks for reporting the problems, and I hope the current development version of tzdb addresses the issues you mentioned.

5 23

Re: [tz] Wrong name of timezone
by Pierpaolo Bernardi 11 Apr '22

11 Apr '22

Il giorno 25 ottobre 2021, alle ore 16:58, Igor Melnyk via tz <tz(a)iana.org> ha scritto: >But Ukraine has the Ukrainian language and Kiev is in russian language. The correct name of the capital city of Ukraine is Kyiv. Kiev is English language, as every other name in the db, not russian. It is only a coincidence that the English name is more similar to russian than to Ukrainian.

6 5

Re: [tz] Change Request: Europe/Kiev to Europe/Kyiv
by John Hawkinson 18 Mar '22

18 Mar '22

I do not think we have handled this well; we have not given Victor Perov a good answer. Indeed, to some extent we've made it a "runaround." We can do better. We should take the time to write up a good lengthy explanation of the issues ("boilerplate"), because this a really important issue of concern to many people in the world and the project has indeed thought about it pretty carefully. Dismissing the inquiries because they are repetitive makes it seem like we haven't, and that unnecessarily upsets peopl. Victor Perev: I don't have time for a full write-up right now, but please consult the archives of the tz list (http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/tz/ or perhaps https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Amm.icann.org%2Fpipermail%2Ftz%2F+kyiv which returns 203 results). The tz project is very conservative in its judgment for when the predominant English spelling of a city has changed, and so far the project has judged that Kiev is still preferred. We discussed it when major English newspapers and style guides changed from Kiev to Kyiv last year (prompted by the US presidential impeachment, which lead to a lot of discussion about Kyiv in America), and we will probably continue to discuss it as time goes on. But we've thought about it and discussed it a lot. The answers you got don't explain that, and that means we have not done a good a job as we should have. Sorry about that. In particular, I think Brian Inglis's answer was actually incorrect in a way that really matters ("Kiev is the correct English spelling"). There are multiple correct English spellings. It used to be that Kiev was the only one, but Kyiv is gaining popularity more and more. Paul Eggert <eggert(a)cs.ucla.edu> wrote on Sat, 15 Aug 2020 at 18:19:08 EDT in <cefc7f01-a3e9-f2a4-9ab9-5288147f994a(a)cs.ucla.edu>: > Thanks for bringing that to the mailing list (if I could shut off GitHub > pull requests I would). Although you cannot do so, we can handle them a little bit better. Please see https://docs.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/creating-a-pu… You can create a template that explains to a would-be pull request submitter than pull requests will be closed and the project uses the mailing list for development discussions. ("I understand that the tz project does not use pull requests on github, and that if I enter a pull request here, it will be closed and I will be directed to send email to tz(a)iana.org.") For the particular case of regular, recurring issues, it may be worth while to keep one of #15, #26, and #27 open and mark the others as a duplicate of it, so that it is easier for newcomers to understand that this issue has been carefully considered and is not a simple oversight. https://github.com/eggert/tz/pulls?q=kiev Also, not to pick on Brian (again), but if the project policy is not to use github pull requests, it's not great to respond to pull requests on their substance, because it bifurcates the discussion and makes it seem like we actually do use pull requests ("except when we don't"). So what seems like a helpful thing may not be. -- jhawk(a)alum.mit.edu John Hawkinson

10 13

Pre-1970 data
by Stephen Colebourne 11 Nov '21

11 Nov '21

How can this project successfully handle pre-1970 data? Why have I focussed so much on IDs and their value to tzdb? Intro ------- In previous threads I've focussed on IDs, and laid out different ways to describe the groups of IDs we have. For now, lets focus solely on the two main groups - region IDs, which represent abstract regions where clocks have been the same since 1970 - non-region IDs, which represent locations where tzdb has, at some point, added an ID The key observation is that the segregation between these two groups of IDs *did not exist* until around 2014. It was only in 2018 that the ISO country rule was removed. It has only been since 2014 or so that IDs have been merged. What tzdb previously offered was a set of IDs, based on a simple rule - "ID as needed for post-1970 data, with at least one per ISO country". Full history was available for each of these (whether accurate or not). What has happened since is a split, where no split previously existed. A split which favours some locations over others. The recent mailing list debates merely represent the cumulation of this favouritism. The irony is that the merges are being done in the name of equity and fairness, when the outcome has actually been the exact opposite - picking favourites, and denigrating everywhere else. That the approach to picking favourites is according to a standardised largest city rule isn't really that relevant here - it is the outcome that is unfair, not the process. If region IDs were of different appearance (eg. numeric or textually different) then the issues would not have arisen. The mistake was taking a fully functional and fully integral set of IDs, and bifurcating it into two groups. The split was actually a huge change in the policy of tzdb, which has been added drip by drip, rather than something that was ever fully appreciated up front. FWIW, it is clear to me that there is an aspect of imposing a US-centric timezone system on other parts of the world. The recent tzdb approach of focussing entirely on timezone regions makes perfect sense for the US, where region boundaries do not follow state lines, and ordinary members of the public need to be aware of whether they are in US/Mountain or US/Central. This simply isn't the timezone model in many other parts of the world. In places like Europe and Asia, the timezone is driven primarily by the country you live in - an ordinary member of the public in Iceland is never going to associate with some abstract timezone region stretching down the Atlantic that is not named, not legally defined and is little more than a random outcome based on tzdb's choice of 1970. Even in somewhere like Norway, an ordinary member of the public will understand that although they follow CET, their timezone is actually driven by their Government in Oslo. The brilliance of the original rule - "ID as needed for post-1970 data, with at least one per ISO country" - was that it seamlessly handled *both* models of timezone in one unified set of IDs. Removal of the ISO country part has completely destabilised that balance. As a constraint to this thread, tzdb really needs to offer one standard view of data, not command line flags that allow different views. If downstream projects end up with different views of the data, it makes tzdb a much less reliable source. (tzdb can be packaged in different ways on the same machine, for example it is undesirable for Postgres' internal tzdb and the OS tzdb to diverge for the same version). Given this, what needs to be nailed down is what is the default data set that tzdb publishes - there isn't really much point in talking about compile time flags, or that the contents of backzone could be used by someone. Lets look at seven options for pre-1970 data: Pre-1970 data for regions only ----------------------------------------- 1) Pre-1970 data for regions only - Despite looking identical to other IDs, region IDs are treated as special/favoured - Pre-1970 data for non-region IDs is of no importance whatsoever, thus most get pre-1970 data from another country/continent - The split between region and non-region locations is fully completed - the US-centric timezone model is dominant - An end user in Iceland is supposed to use Africa/Abidjan, Europe/Reykjavik is treated as a historical mistake of tzdb kept around only for backwards compatibility Pre-1970 data for most IDs ------------------------------------ 2) Pre-1970 data for each ID meeting the rule "ID as needed for post-1970 data, with at least one per ISO country" - The split between region and non-region locations is healed - High quality data from places like Iceland and Norway is retained, but low quality data from elsewhere is restored - The pre-1970 data is simply viewed as the best available data for the each location which can be improved over time - Most end-users in Iceland would expect tzdb to provide pre-1970 data from Iceland, not the Ivory Coast 3) Pre-1970 data for for all IDs that currently exist except true aliases - This is very similar to #2, but would include something like Montreal which was effectively mistakenly added to tzdb - This doesn't seem as desirable as #2 4) Pre-1970 data for any ID where the pre-1970 data is high quality - Subjective on quality, which doesn't seem like a great idea - It does avoid bringing bad quality data back into the main tzdb distribution - On balance, #2 has fewer places for debate to arise 5) Pre-1970 data for all IDs that currently exist except true aliases, plus a *new* set of IDs representing regions - As per #2, but adding IDs like "Region/12345" or "Region/Berlin" - Regions should contain post-1970 data only, as the region is by definition only meaningful post-1970 - It is not entirely clear what this solves over just going with #2 - This option is connected to Russ' proposals [1], although he suggests a bigger split between timekeeping data and ID naming - Perhaps it makes sense if the new region IDs were internal and not normally seen by end users? Remove pre-1970 data from general use ------------------------------------------------------- 6) No pre-1970 data whatsoever, all IDs are post-1970 only - Project policy is that tzdb is focussed on post-1970 data only - Paul repeatedly tells us that pre-1970 data is unreliable, and people shouldn't use it - Pre-1970 data would not be deleted, but would not be available in most downstreams - The split between region and non-region locations is effectively healed - End users lose access to pre-1970 data, which is particularly notable in some locations where that data is reliable, eg London - It is unknown at this point what the user impact is of removing pre-1970 data from major financial/business centres (no major location has yet been merged) 7) No existing IDs get pre-1970 data, but a *new* set of IDs are created containing it - As per #5, the existing IDs get no pre-1970 data and the split between region and non-region locations is healed - New IDs, such as "Historic/Europe/London" or "Historic/Africa/Abidjan" get created for each of the main IDs - The historic IDs include pre-1970 data, the standard IDs do not - There is a mechanical transformation between the historic and non-historic IDs - Whether downstreams do or do not include the historic IDs is their choice, potentially based on available space - The data provided by the standard non-historic IDs remains the same whether the downstream includes the historic IDs or not (a Good Thing) - Users have to deliberately opt-in to get pre-1970 data, which might make them think about the accuracy issue Notes -------- - I'm not discussing adding new IDs simply to represent locations whose clocks differ only before 1970. I don't personally think that is a job for tzdb, and even if it is, it is a job for a different thread. - I'm not discussing what value is returned prior to 1970 when pre-1970 data is removed. That would be a job for a different thread. - Link vs Zone is not important for this discussion. Summary ------------- After a few weeks of thinking, these are the options I've come up with. Feel free to suggest another option or variant if you think I've missed anything obvious. I believe that was a disaster that the brilliant "ID as needed for post-1970 data, with at least one per ISO country" rule was removed. It has created needless division, bifurcating a unified set of ID into region and non-region IDs and creating backwards compatibility issues in the data of many locations. IMO, there are two basic models of timezones in the world, and moving tzdb from one that supported both to one that only supports the US-centric model is simply a mistake that needs correcting. As such, my preference would be to adopt option 2. Option 6 or 7 could work, and might be the best choices if we had a clean slate or if there was some hidden pressure that the list is unaware of to remove pre-1970 data, but they are risky options given we do not know the impact on end-users in major financial/business centres. Stephen [1] https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/tz/2021-September/030518.html

23 59

event of interest: Future of Europe debates – The end of DST: how can it be placed back to the European agenda?
by BASTIAN Michelle 27 Oct '21

27 Oct '21

Hi all, I was just at events for the Barcelona Time Use initiative time use week 2021 and the panel on changing DST in Europe was very interesting and I thought some of you might want to take a look. It is free to sign up and you can access recordings of all the events including the one on time zones/DST. Description and link below. Loved that there was lots of talk about there being no problem having many more time zones in Europe as ‘our computers handle all of that for us now’. https://timeuseweek.beplanet.tv/en/ Future of Europe debates – The end of DST: how can it be placed back to the European agenda? In 2019, the European Parliament agreed to end the biannual clock change. Nevertheless, the Member States have not been able to achieve an agreement on which time zone has to be adopted. This debate explores how can we place back the debate on the European and Member States agenda. Representative of European Parliament Pending to confirm Maria Nikolopoulou European social and economic council Ticia Luengo International Association for Natural Time Till Roenneberg World Federation of Societies for Chronobiology Best, Michelle. --- Dr Michelle Bastian Mid-Career Fellow, Independent Social Research Foundation (Project info<https://www.isrf.org/fellows-projects/michelle-bastian/>) Senior Lecturer in Environmental Humanities ESALA, Edinburgh College of Art, University of Edinburgh The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. Is e buidheann carthannais a th’ ann an Oilthigh Dhùn Èideann, clàraichte an Alba, àireamh clàraidh SC005336.

3 2

Re: [tz] tzcode2021e: uninitialized variable in localtime.c
by Paul Eggert 27 Oct '21

27 Oct '21

On 10/22/21 07:49, Christos Zoulas wrote: > My linter reports "prevcorr" is uninitialized in the if statement > below the comment that starts "To avoid other botches". Thanks for mentioning that. This prompted me to find an obscure bug in localtime that would cause it to access an uninitialized local variable (which is undefined behavior) in cases involving 32-bit time_t code reading malformed 64-bit data. I installed the attached patch to fix the bug, and I hope this also pacifies your linter.

2 1

[PROPOSED] Be more generous when dealing with v1 data
by Paul Eggert 26 Oct '21

26 Oct '21

* NEWS: Mention this. * localtime.c (tzloadbody): In version 2 and later files, do not attempt to validate the version 1 header and data block; instead, ignore them except for the purpose of skipping over them, as per a recommendation in RFC 8536 section 4. Also, when the TZif file is version 1 and we break out near the end of the loop, do so only after altering nread and memmoving any later data; this avoids having later code attempt to parse the version 1 header as if it were a TZ string. --- NEWS | 6 +++++ localtime.c | 71 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------- 2 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-) diff --git a/NEWS b/NEWS index d4a9823..0f684f7 100644 --- a/NEWS +++ b/NEWS @@ -14,6 +14,12 @@ Unreleased, experimental changes Fix bug when 32-bit time_t code reads malformed 64-bit TZif data. (Problem reported by Christos Zoulas.) + When reading a version 2 or later TZif file, the TZif reader now + validates the version 1 header and data block only enough to skip + over them, as recommended by RFC 8536 section 4. Also, the TZif + reader no longer mistakenly attempts to parse a version 1 TZIf + file header as a TZ string. + Release 2021e - 2021-10-21 18:41:00 -0700 diff --git a/localtime.c b/localtime.c index 6d736b2..39ef6e3 100644 --- a/localtime.c +++ b/localtime.c @@ -434,35 +434,45 @@ tzloadbody(char const *name, struct state *sp, bool doextend, if (close(fid) < 0) return errno; for (stored = 4; stored <= 8; stored *= 2) { - int_fast32_t ttisstdcnt = detzcode(up->tzhead.tzh_ttisstdcnt); - int_fast32_t ttisutcnt = detzcode(up->tzhead.tzh_ttisutcnt); - int_fast64_t prevtr = -1; - int_fast32_t prevcorr; - int_fast32_t leapcnt = detzcode(up->tzhead.tzh_leapcnt); - int_fast32_t timecnt = detzcode(up->tzhead.tzh_timecnt); - int_fast32_t typecnt = detzcode(up->tzhead.tzh_typecnt); - int_fast32_t charcnt = detzcode(up->tzhead.tzh_charcnt); - char const *p = up->buf + tzheadsize; - /* Although tzfile(5) currently requires typecnt to be nonzero, - support future formats that may allow zero typecnt - in files that have a TZ string and no transitions. */ - if (! (0 <= leapcnt && leapcnt < TZ_MAX_LEAPS - && 0 <= typecnt && typecnt < TZ_MAX_TYPES - && 0 <= timecnt && timecnt < TZ_MAX_TIMES - && 0 <= charcnt && charcnt < TZ_MAX_CHARS - && (ttisstdcnt == typecnt || ttisstdcnt == 0) - && (ttisutcnt == typecnt || ttisutcnt == 0))) - return EINVAL; - if (nread - < (tzheadsize /* struct tzhead */ - + timecnt * stored /* ats */ + char version = up->tzhead.tzh_version[0]; + bool skip_datablock = stored == 4 && version; + int_fast32_t datablock_size; + int_fast32_t ttisstdcnt = detzcode(up->tzhead.tzh_ttisstdcnt); + int_fast32_t ttisutcnt = detzcode(up->tzhead.tzh_ttisutcnt); + int_fast64_t prevtr = -1; + int_fast32_t prevcorr; + int_fast32_t leapcnt = detzcode(up->tzhead.tzh_leapcnt); + int_fast32_t timecnt = detzcode(up->tzhead.tzh_timecnt); + int_fast32_t typecnt = detzcode(up->tzhead.tzh_typecnt); + int_fast32_t charcnt = detzcode(up->tzhead.tzh_charcnt); + char const *p = up->buf + tzheadsize; + /* Although tzfile(5) currently requires typecnt to be nonzero, + support future formats that may allow zero typecnt + in files that have a TZ string and no transitions. */ + if (! (0 <= leapcnt && leapcnt < TZ_MAX_LEAPS + && 0 <= typecnt && typecnt < TZ_MAX_TYPES + && 0 <= timecnt && timecnt < TZ_MAX_TIMES + && 0 <= charcnt && charcnt < TZ_MAX_CHARS + && 0 <= ttisstdcnt && ttisstdcnt < TZ_MAX_TYPES + && 0 <= ttisutcnt && ttisutcnt < TZ_MAX_TYPES)) + return EINVAL; + datablock_size + = (timecnt * stored /* ats */ + timecnt /* types */ + typecnt * 6 /* ttinfos */ + charcnt /* chars */ + leapcnt * (stored + 4) /* lsinfos */ + ttisstdcnt /* ttisstds */ - + ttisutcnt)) /* ttisuts */ + + ttisutcnt); /* ttisuts */ + if (nread < tzheadsize + datablock_size) + return EINVAL; + if (skip_datablock) + p += datablock_size; + else { + if (! ((ttisstdcnt == typecnt || ttisstdcnt == 0) + && (ttisutcnt == typecnt || ttisutcnt == 0))) return EINVAL; + sp->leapcnt = leapcnt; sp->timecnt = timecnt; sp->typecnt = typecnt; @@ -578,13 +588,14 @@ tzloadbody(char const *name, struct state *sp, bool doextend, ttisp->tt_ttisut = *p++; } } - /* - ** If this is an old file, we're done. - */ - if (up->tzhead.tzh_version[0] == '\0') - break; - nread -= p - up->buf; - memmove(up->buf, p, nread); + } + + nread -= p - up->buf; + memmove(up->buf, p, nread); + + /* If this is an old file, we're done. */ + if (!version) + break; } if (doextend && nread > 2 && up->buf[0] == '\n' && up->buf[nread - 1] == '\n' && -- 2.31.1

1 0