[tz] zdump new option -i for easier-to-review output
eggert at cs.ucla.edu
Mon Aug 22 17:38:07 UTC 2016
Jon Skeet wrote:
> Is that due to dates past 2038, or something else?
Also dates before 1901 for 32-bit signed time_t, or before 1970 for unsigned
time_t. I want the pre-1901 transitions to be checked, though, so I would rather
stick with 64-bit signed time_t when generating the reference file.
Plus, on some platforms zdump uses CRLF instead of LF to terminate output lines.
There may be other niggling things like that.
> I'd be testing something where time_t doesn't get involved at all, of
> course - an entirely different, non-C-based representation. That's the
> point of it, from my perspective.
Something with bignums, say? (Because 64-bit signed time_t doesn't suffice for
simulations of proton decay in degenerate stars. See:
Adams FC. The future history of the universe. Cosmic Update. 2011-07-23.
More information about the tz