Rev. 1.32 moved a comment to the wrong line. The hack refered to
in the comment applies to a decision that needs to be made in relation to the year 2000. In fact, that statement probably should be changed to be more generic (getting the year from the current time perhaps). Otherwise, starting in 2069 two digit year conversions in date(1) will start assuming 1900 instead of 2000. hehe.
This commit is contained in:
parent
3c35de715f
commit
ee4270905d
@ -234,9 +234,9 @@ setthetime(const char *fmt, const char *p, int jflag, int nflag)
|
|||||||
case 10: /* yy */
|
case 10: /* yy */
|
||||||
if (century)
|
if (century)
|
||||||
lt->tm_year += ATOI2(p);
|
lt->tm_year += ATOI2(p);
|
||||||
else { /* hack for 2000 ;-} */
|
else {
|
||||||
lt->tm_year = ATOI2(p);
|
lt->tm_year = ATOI2(p);
|
||||||
if (lt->tm_year < 69)
|
if (lt->tm_year < 69) /* hack for 2000 ;-} */
|
||||||
lt->tm_year += 2000 - TM_YEAR_BASE;
|
lt->tm_year += 2000 - TM_YEAR_BASE;
|
||||||
else
|
else
|
||||||
lt->tm_year += 1900 - TM_YEAR_BASE;
|
lt->tm_year += 1900 - TM_YEAR_BASE;
|
||||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user