>From 1f3fc75b8f9bb408cc8f0a6e10aa7160021f4ca5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Paul Eggert Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 17:29:17 -0700 Subject: [PROPOSED] glibc may have similar bug Problem reported by Joseph Myers in: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/tz/2018-June/026528.html * zic.c (WORK_AROUND_CLIENT_OVERFLOW_BUGS): Rename from WORK_AROUND_GLIB_BUG_878. All uses changed. --- zic.c | 18 +++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/zic.c b/zic.c index 9e25b02..fd73f66 100644 --- a/zic.c +++ b/zic.c @@ -976,13 +976,17 @@ static zic_t const max_time = MAXVAL(zic_t, TIME_T_BITS_IN_FILE); by refusing to output timestamps before BIG_BANG. Such timestamps are physically suspect anyway. - - The glib bug is scheduled to be fixed in glib 2.58, and if so - this workaround will no longer be needed when glib 2.57 and - earlier are obsolete, say in the year 2025. */ -enum { WORK_AROUND_GLIB_BUG_878 = true }; - -static const zic_t early_time = (WORK_AROUND_GLIB_BUG_878 + The glib bug is scheduled to be fixed in glib 2.58. + There is a similar bug in 32-bit glibc 2.27 and earlier + + that is scheduled to be fixed in glibc 2.28; + unfortunately a similar bug might persist in 64-bit glibc + though this has not been verified. With all this in mind, + let's hope that the workaround will no longer be needed + in the year 2025. */ +enum { WORK_AROUND_CLIENT_OVERFLOW_BUGS = true }; + +static const zic_t early_time = (WORK_AROUND_CLIENT_OVERFLOW_BUGS ? BIG_BANG : MINVAL(zic_t, TIME_T_BITS_IN_FILE)); -- 2.7.4