[Privoxy-devel] how costly is --enable-strptime-sanity-checks ?

[Lee]

On 5/8/16, Fabian Keil <fk at fabiankeil.de> wrote:
> Lee <ler762 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/6/16, Fabian Keil <fk at fabiankeil.de> wrote:
>> > Fabian Keil <fk at fabiankeil.de> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Lee <ler762 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> > $ ./test
>> >> > sizeof time_t = 4
>> >> >
>> >> > ----- old cygwin 1.5 / gcc v3
>> >> > [1.5] /cygdrive/c/cygwin/home/Lee/t
>> >> > $ gcc -mno-cygwin size.c -o test
>> >> >
>> >> > [1.5] /cygdrive/c/cygwin/home/Lee/t
>> >> > $ ./test
>> >> > sizeof time_t = 4
>> >> >
>> >> > So why isn't there a 'year 2038' problem with gcc -mno-cygwin?
>> >>
>> >> Maybe there is a problem and the sanity checks just don't
>> >> detect it.
>> >
>> > Additionally most of the problematic time-related tests are
>> > level 17 tests and should thus be skipped on native windows
>> > builds due to:
>> >
>> > # Level 17 needs = feature status FEATURE_PTHREAD Yes
>> >
>> > Of course FEATURE_PTHREAD does not actually guarantee a 64
>> > bit time_t, so maybe we should add a FEATURE_64_BIT_TIME_T
>> > to make the test results easier to compare.
>>
>> That sounds good.  It looks like the standard way to check the size is
>>   AC_CHECK_SIZEOF(time_t)
>> which, on my machine, adds
>>
>> /* The size of `time_t', as computed by sizeof. */
>> #define SIZEOF_TIME_T 4
>>
>> to config.h
>> dunno how to get from there to FEATURE_64_BIT_TIME_T tho :(
>
> FEATURE_64_BIT_TIME_T is available in CVS now.

I'll give it a try.  Expected difference in behavior now is what?

Thanks,
Lee