From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: Charles Bailey <cbailey32@bloomberg.net>, git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] t4212: handle systems with post-apocalyptic gmtime
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 15:33:59 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140326193359.GA14105@sigill.intra.peff.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140326192536.GA13989@sigill.intra.peff.net>
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 03:25:36PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> > The primary thing you wanted to achieve by the "gmtime gave us NULL,
> > let's substitute it with an arbitrary value to avoid dereferencing
> > the NULL" change was *not* that we see that same arbitrary value
> > comes out of the system, but that we do not die by attempting to
> > reference the NULL, I think. Not dying is the primary thing we want
> > to (and we already do) test, no?
>
> I think there are really two separate behaviors we are testing here (and
> in the surrounding tests):
>
> 1. Don't segfault if gmtime returns NULL.
>
> 2. Whenever we cannot process a date (either because gmtime fails, or
> because we fail before even getting the value to gmtime),
> consistently return the sentinel date (so the reader can easily
> know it's bogus).
>
> Having the test be particular about its output helped us find a case
> where FreeBSD did not trigger (1), but did trigger (2), by returning a
> blanked "struct tm".
>
> I'm open to the argument that (2) is not worth worrying about that much
> if it is a hassle to test. But I don't think it is that much hassle
> (yet, anyway).
That being said, is the AIX value actually right? I did not look closely
at first, but just assumed that it was vaguely right. But:
999999999999999999 / (86400 * 365)
is something like 31 billion years in the future, not 160 million.
A real date calculation will have a few tweaks (leap years, etc), but
that is orders of magnitude off.
So I am not sure that AIX is not actually just giving us utter crap. In
that case, the test is not wrong; it's pickiness is actually finding a
real problem. But I am not sure it is a problem worth solving. I do not
want to get into heuristics deciding whether a particular platform's
gmtime output is crap or not. That pushes this into the realm of "it's
not worth testing", and we should stick to just testing that we did not
segfault.
-Peff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-03-26 19:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 48+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-02-24 7:33 [PATCH 0/5] handle bogus commit dates Jeff King
2014-02-24 7:36 ` [PATCH 1/5] t4212: test bogus timestamps with git-log Jeff King
2014-02-24 7:39 ` [PATCH 2/5] fsck: report integer overflow in author timestamps Jeff King
2014-02-24 7:39 ` [PATCH 3/5] date: check date overflow against time_t Jeff King
2014-02-24 7:46 ` [PATCH 4/5] log: handle integer overflow in timestamps Jeff King
2014-02-24 19:50 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-02-24 19:58 ` Jeff King
2014-02-24 20:21 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-02-24 20:37 ` Jeff King
2014-02-24 21:01 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-02-24 7:49 ` [PATCH 5/5] log: do not segfault on gmtime errors Jeff King
2014-03-22 9:32 ` René Scharfe
2014-03-24 21:33 ` Jeff King
2014-03-24 22:03 ` René Scharfe
2014-03-24 22:11 ` Jeff King
2014-03-26 11:05 ` Charles Bailey
2014-03-26 18:21 ` Jeff King
2014-03-26 18:51 ` [PATCH] t4212: handle systems with post-apocalyptic gmtime Jeff King
2014-03-26 19:18 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-03-26 19:25 ` Jeff King
2014-03-26 19:33 ` Jeff King [this message]
2014-03-26 19:40 ` Jeff King
2014-03-26 20:36 ` Charles Bailey
2014-03-26 20:38 ` Jeff King
2014-03-26 20:41 ` Charles Bailey
2014-03-26 21:22 ` Charles Bailey
2014-03-26 21:57 ` Jeff King
2014-03-26 22:46 ` Charles Bailey
2014-03-27 22:48 ` Jeff King
2014-03-28 16:41 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-03-28 18:47 ` Jeff King
2014-03-28 19:02 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-03-28 19:05 ` Jeff King
2014-03-28 19:30 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-04-01 7:38 ` Jeff King
2014-04-01 7:42 ` [PATCH 1/2] date: recognize bogus FreeBSD gmtime output Jeff King
2014-04-01 17:42 ` René Scharfe
2014-04-01 19:08 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-04-01 21:17 ` René Scharfe
2014-04-01 21:28 ` Jeff King
2014-04-01 7:43 ` [PATCH 2/2] t4212: loosen far-in-future test for AIX Jeff King
2014-04-01 7:45 ` [PATCH 2alt/2] work around unreliable gmtime errors on AIX Jeff King
2014-04-01 19:07 ` [PATCH] t4212: handle systems with post-apocalyptic gmtime Junio C Hamano
2014-04-01 19:46 ` Jeff King
2014-03-26 18:58 ` [PATCH 5/5] log: do not segfault on gmtime errors Junio C Hamano
2014-03-26 19:01 ` Jeff King
2014-03-26 21:01 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-03-26 21:09 ` Jeff King
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20140326193359.GA14105@sigill.intra.peff.net \
--to=peff@peff.net \
--cc=cbailey32@bloomberg.net \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).