Boost logo

Boost Testing :

From: Victor A. Wagner Jr. (vawjr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-02 15:16:35

At 09:31 2005-06-02, Caleb Epstein wrote:
>On 6/2/05, John Maddock <john_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > From a practical viewpoint, I guess the question is are
> > there any platforms that accept negative times? It's not as illogical
> as it
> > might appear if they do - it's the only way to represent dates before
> 1970 I
> > believe.
>Yes. Linux for example is more than happy to report that the
>localtime equivalent of numeric_limits<time_t>::min() is 1901-12-13
>15:45:52 EST. Solaris reports that it is -2147483648=1901-12-13
>16:45:52 EWT (Eastern War Time?)

IMO even 1900 is a rediculously late "minimum" time. especially for
boost::date_time which shouldn't be "bound" to any particular hardware or OS.

>I would contend that the behavior of the MSVC runtime is a bug. Worst
>case It should definitely not assert and best case it should behave
>like POSIX systems do (e.g. treat it as a date before the Epoch).
>Caleb Epstein
>caleb dot epstein at gmail dot com
>Boost-Testing mailing list

Victor A. Wagner Jr.
The five most dangerous words in the English language:
               "There oughta be a law"

Boost-testing list run by mbergal at