[vdr] Re: timer problem

Sergei Haller Sergei.Haller at math.uni-giessen.de
Thu Jun 2 16:27:08 CEST 2005


On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Rainer Zocholl (RZ) wrote:

RZ> Sergei.Haller at math.uni-giessen.de(Sergei Haller)  02.06.05 11:56
RZ>
RZ> >they could have implemented a thing like
RZ> 
RZ> >   date -d "946684800"
RZ> 
RZ> >THEN it would be intended. 
RZ> 
RZ> but when one uses 2000-01-01 (to save bits) as epoch he lost?

???

RZ> 
RZ> Yes, if everybody uses 1970-01-01 as base.

that's part of the definition of time_t.

RZ> It'll last not very long anymore and many many unix may crash 
RZ> because the systemtime in seconds "wraps"..

that's a completely different problem. unrelated to VDR too.

RZ> Compared to this the Y2K problem was just a joke, because mainly 
RZ> a "display" problem,

no, Y2K wasn't just a "display" problem, but again, this is OT.

back to your original question:

  yes, VDR computes the time_t values correctly,
       as, I think, I was able to show using "time" and "date" in
       my first post in this thread.
  

c ya,
        Sergei
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------  -?)
         eMail:       Sergei.Haller at math.uni-giessen.de               /\\
-------------------------------------------------------------------- _\_V
Be careful of reading health books, you might die of a misprint.
                -- Mark Twain



More information about the vdr mailing list