Thread

1. Patch for glibc2 date problems

   Oliver Elphick <olly@lfix.co.uk> — 1998-01-15T18:02:25Z

   The Hermit Hacker wrote:
     >On Thu, 15 Jan 1998, Oliver Elphick wrote:
     >
     >> I have a potential patch for the glibc2 date problem; however I can't
     >> test it because the snapshot won't build. 
     >
     >	remove src/backend/parser/scan.c...that should fix your problem
     >
   
   Thanks, it did.
   
   
   The patch for glibc2 dates is attached.  With this applied, a Linux system
   with libc6 (glibc2) passes all the date and time related regression tests.
   
   
   

2. Re: [HACKERS] Patch for glibc2 date problems

   Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu> — 1998-01-16T02:16:32Z

   > The patch for glibc2 dates is attached.  With this applied, a Linux system
   > with libc6 (glibc2) passes all the date and time related regression tests.
   
   It looks as though this patch is a bit Linux-specific (or specific to some version of glibc which has only been tested on
   Linux).
   
   Can we wait until glibc2 settles down, or provide this as an add-on patch rather than merging it into the main tree? I hate
   adding machine-specific code into otherwise general code...
   
   Another possibility would be to add a new #define variable like HAVE_FUNNY_LIBRARY in config.h or in linux.h so we can
   possibly use this with other ports if necessary in the future.
   
   I'm planning on installing RH5.0 sometime soon (I have a clean disk so can fall back to RH4.2). I'm sure I'll sound more
   sympathetic by then  :)
   
                                                       - Tom
   
   
   

3. Re: [HACKERS] Patch for glibc2 date problems

   Maarten Boekhold <maartenb@dutepp0.et.tudelft.nl> — 1998-01-16T09:52:06Z

   On Fri, 16 Jan 1998, Thomas G. Lockhart wrote:
   
   > > The patch for glibc2 dates is attached.  With this applied, a Linux system
   > > with libc6 (glibc2) passes all the date and time related regression tests.
    
   > It looks as though this patch is a bit Linux-specific (or specific to
   some version of glibc which has only been tested on Linux). 
    
   > Can we wait until glibc2 settles down, or provide this as an add-on
   patch rather than merging it into the main tree? I hate adding
   machine-specific code into otherwise general code... 
    
   > Another possibility would be to add a new #define variable like
   HAVE_FUNNY_LIBRARY in config.h or in linux.h so we can possibly use this
   with other ports if necessary in the future. 
   
   How about making this #define 'HAVE_GLIBC' ???
   
   Maarten
   
   _____________________________________________________________________________
   |     Maarten Boekhold, Faculty of Electrical Engineering TU Delft,   NL    |
   |           Computer Architecture and Digital Technique section             |
   |                          M.Boekhold@et.tudelft.nl                         |
   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------