|
|
Am 11.08.2021 um 15:09 schrieb William F Pokorny:
> wrapper script. The latter (now)- with the original boost code does
> return utc - but the %z %Z options in datetime don't work. Sticking with
> v3.8 beta <n> as is - at least as far as my Ubuntu machine goes - is an
> OK option I think.
Can you elaborate on the "%z %Z don't work"?
Note that placing `%z` or `%Z` in the string passed to `strftime()`
doesn't magically alter how that function interprets the data it
receives. It just inserts the identifier for whatever timezone the
system has been configured to use, period. It is the responsibility of
the software developer (which in this particular case and current state
of affairs eventually means the scene author) to make sure that the data
passed to `strftime()` is local time when using `%z` or `%Z` (or no
timezone identifier at all, for that matter) and UTC when appending a
literal `Z` to indicate UTC.
There is one additional caveat in that an additional data field needs to
be set up properly in order for `%z` or `%Z` to print the proper
timezone information when DST would be in effect at the point in time
specified. If that is not done, the timezone printed will not properly
adapt to DST.
Since the code was designed for UTC, the DST field was never really
considered, and may be set up completely wrong.
If the "don't work" symptoms you observed can't be explained by either
of the above caveats, then I'd like to learn more about it.
> Complete aside... I have a vague recollection of a compile time
> environment variable for some compiler which let users select whether
> std::time() - the 'c' time - would return utc or local time. But, maybe
> it was a fever dream... :-)
Maybe what you remember was actually a preprocessor macro in some
software package, to let it know what was implemented in the library?
The boost source code hints that an obscure IDE for embedded system
development called Metrowerks CodeWarrior would use local time, rather
than utc, throughout the date/time-related portions of its C library.
Post a reply to this message
|
|