Re: tests: cal/bigyear only works on 64bit (sizeof(long) == 8) systems

[Karel Zak <kzak@redhat.com>]

On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 11:21:03PM +0000, Sami Kerola wrote:
> On 6 January 2014 13:08, Karel Zak <kzak@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 12:55:08PM +0000, Sami Kerola wrote:
> >> Year was left signed because someone said it might be interesting to
> >> know pre-year-zero outputs. After a bit research the pre-zero year
> >> calendars are theoretical construct, mostly because agreement in
> >
> > but the code is:
> >
> >     #define SMALLEST_YEAR           1
> >
> >     if (ctl.req.year < SMALLEST_YEAR)
> >           errx(EXIT_FAILURE,  _("illegal year value: use positive integer"));
> 
> Hi Karel,
> 
> That is correct right now. If negative years are allowed to be used
> I'm sure bug reports will follow. The leap year printouts are
> obviously wrong.
> 
> >> Meanwhile the big year test is clearly broken. I recon there should be
> >> a version for various sizes of INT_MAX tests, and depending how large
> >> values are supported by system corresponding tests are ran.
> >
> >  INT_MAX is the same everywhere, all you need is to remove arch
> >  specific "long" from the code and use strtos32_or_err() to parse the
> >  year number.
> >
> >  (Well, I guess that 2147483647 years is enough :-)
> 
> Use of 32 bit int is indeed the easiest fix, and I'm all in favor of
> cutting the cal output there.

 OK, I'm going to wait for the patch :-)
 
    Karel


-- 
 Karel Zak  <kzak@redhat.com>
 http://karelzak.blogspot.com