Big fonts mean insecurity and deep inferiority complex ;D
I don't rely on wiki. Wiki are texts editable by 7 year olds. I bitchslapped you with real C code. That's how a real programmer handles a big-mouth, big-font, wannabes
It doesn't matter whether a user code will involve in the Bug or not. It's up to the programmers to deal with the bug at the application layers aka userland. But here we are talking about KERNEL CODE that will effect everybody. Like INODE, IOCTL, EXT3 and those kernel things that rely on C's faulty data structure.
Now I have to repeat myself 4 times already and you still clueless about it? See my first post above about the difficulty in explaining these things to non-technical guy!
Seems like big fonts can't help you much to cure your incompetency ;D
Big fonts mean insecurity and deep inferiority complex ;D
For someone who refuses to read, it means emphasis. If you don't trust wikipedia, then click on the links to every claim? Unlike you, they back it up. It has references for a reason. You know there's known that everyone who bashes on wikipedia because "it's editable" is actually a so-called 7 year old himself. If you ever tried to edit it, you'd know why you'd fail too.
There's actually a term that describes everything you say perfectly. So perfect, in fact, that it has become a TV trope as well (i.e. meme on adapted stories or fictional works).
Please keep your emphasis on "non-sensical". Here' relevant part:
They may use jargon without considering what it actually means to give an impression that they know things that their readers or listeners do not. However, if the jargon is decoded, it becomes apparent that the originator does not really understand what has been said or is deliberately being unclear.
You know, this is a programming forum and for assembly language none-the-less. Expecting people to be this dumb is kind of naive. (example: the C structure, your scapegoat -- which has int member for year, so it can technically store years up to 2 billion, when the actual issue is time_t which is the input source, not any struct of course, but using terms like "C structure" makes kids think they sound cool with nonsense )
when the actual issue is time_t which is the input source
No shit Captain Obvious! It took you two threads to finally realize the real issue here is related to C's 32-bit signed time_t! And you call yourself a programmer when everybody else naturally understand it without going through all of your lengthy BS posts.
Are you fucking retarded? You're the pathetic moron who kept bullshitting about "C structures". YOU. time_t is a typedef you fucking retard. A typedef is literally an alias to a type, in this case an integer type (NOT a structure), a structure defines a new type, you don't know SHIT about C nor C++. You can't "misuse" these terms, because there's only one way of talking about it.
The tm structure for localtime is identical for localtime64 on your beloved Microsoft implementation (which is hilariously bad to begin with). They all return a pointer to the same structure. time64_t is a "typedef struct" for 32-bit since Microsoft are too retarded to think of int64_t (but it does the exact same thing, see for instance all their APIs using 64-bit data). Everything you say is against yourself -- everything you say I did "stupid" was in fact you reflecting on yourself but thinking it was me who said it to make your sorry ass feel better.
I bitchslapped your sorry face with a simple C code to prove my point, remember? xD
I can probably teach a gorilla to fly in less than half a thread. You, idiot, requires 2 full threads to understand this simple / basic things as signed vs unsigned int. That tells a lot of your complete incompetency.
All you have left now is your bruised ego, reddish face and your BIG MOUTH, trying to find new talking points to make you look 'smart' on this board.
Actually no you didn't, all you do is technobabbling with absolutely no sense at all. Your C code proves nothing other than the fact you can't even follow Microsoft's API (lmao, it's like not checking HeapAlloc for retuning NULL and then blaming whatever instead of your stupidity, trash "programmer" -- MS's implementation differs from Linux/Unix anyway, so it's already off topic for this section -- but MS specifically state the function returns NULL after a given date (year 3k even for the 64-bit version!!) and considering you can feed it any input whatsoever, not checking for NULL is a serious security risk on your hands you idiot, the kernel has nothing to do with this, it's a userland library anyway; so you blame a kernel "problem" on your own inability to understand the API you're using, from Microsoft nonetheless (not Linux), laughable)
Hey, it's not me who doesn't have the internet (i.e. wikipedia) on his back, but you. I don't know how it feels to be alone in the internet, but it must suck. The funny thing is, I know for sure why you bring the "smart" thing up, since that's exactly what you're doing with technobabbling -- and projecting your stupidity on others. Trying to look smart with buzzwords like "C structure".
Well, now it degenerated so I'm out of here, go "LOL" like last time I proved you wrong (literally) in another thread like a stupid kid.
EDIT: Oh just in case you throw a fit here's the API description from Microsoft themselves:
Return a pointer to the structure result, or NULL if the date passed to the function is:
Before midnight, January 1, 1970.
After 03:14:07, January 19, 2038, UTC (using _time32 and time32_t).
After 23:59:59, December 31, 3000, UTC (using _time64 and __time64_t).
Your code didn't check for NULL, that's your fault for not following the API. (this is a security practice as well, nothing to do with dates only). Go learn proper programming instead of being a script kid. (note that Linux's API doesn't have this NULL thing from what I seen, so don't even start with bullshit, you brought Microsoft's implementation in a section about Linux)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum