newnews y2k bug in 2.2.1
David C Lawrence
tale at iengines.com
Tue Nov 16 01:53:33 UTC 1999
Forrest J. Cavalier III writes:
> I believe this was committed 8 January 1999 by tale.
Yes, I erred, there should have been a >=, not a >.
> Are saving a few CPU cycles so important? Replace the
> test and subtraction with:
> current->tm_year %= 100;
No, but correctness is. While it might be folly to think that code is
going to last until 2100, (at least I sure hope it is folly), I at
least value the notion that it will still work when 2100 hits. Doing
a modulus won't.
More information about the inn-workers