These are copies of the existing tests for `g_time_val_from_iso8601()`,
with the test strings which fail for `GDateTime` commented out. This is
OK, as it’s documented as only accepting a subset of ISO 8601 (and for
some of the test vectors, it’s debatable whether they’re actually valid
ISO 8601, depending on how you interpret the valid bounds of timezone
offsets — some interpretations of the available documentation would say
that timezone offsets should never be ≥24 hours or ≥60 minutes).
There is one test string which is not accepted by
`g_time_val_from_iso8601()` but which is accepted by `GDateTime`, as
`g_date_time_new_from_iso8601()` actually accepts RFC 3339, which is a
little more liberal than ISO 8601. Fun times. See
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3339#section-5.6.
Signed-off-by: Philip Withnall <withnall@endlessm.com>
Some malformed ISO 8601 date/time strings were causing an assertion
failure when passed to `g_date_time_new_from_iso8601()`, due to a
mismatch between the bounds checking of timezone offsets in `GDateTime`
and `GTimeZone`. Fix that and add a unit test for it.
oss-fuzz#16101
Signed-off-by: Philip Withnall <withnall@endlessm.com>
When using the mingw printf shims for C99 compat the msvc format specifiers don't work
and the build fails.
Ideally we would use glib functions which abstract this away, but in the error handler context
we shouldn't call back into glib. And for scanf we don't have a glib wrapper.
Instead call the "secure" versions provided by the win32 API (_snprintf_s/fprintf_s/sscanf_s)
which mingw doesn't replace.
We currently check in multiple places if vsnprintf/snprintf/printf are
good and if not use gnulib. This case was not checking for printf which
made the build fail with recent mingw-w64 where snprintf was improved to
pass all glib checks but printf still doesn't.
Commit 6f55306e04 unintendedly broke error handling for other
error conditions than ENOENT along the path, like EPERM. It wanted
to ignore ENOENT on all elements except the last in the path, but
in doing that it ignored any other error that might happen on the
last element.
https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/glib/issues/1852
You may expect funny effects from passing invalid UTF-8, but not
that funny. The assert will probably be a better and more immediate
confirmation of an error than invalid writes under the address of the
string copy.
https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/glib/issues/1863
"Uninitialized value" is partially correct, since it has not been
initialized with a type, but it's more precise to say
"zero-initialized value". It is still a programming error to pass a
pointer to uninitialized memory with arbitrary contents as the value.
Signed-off-by: Simon McVittie <smcv@collabora.com>
This comment was correct until commit adf1f98f62, when the `GTimeVal`
which the result was put into (introducing the Y2038-unsafety) was
dropped.
The adjustment and scaling of the `FILETIME` should not make it
Y2038-unsafe: the maximum `FILETIME` is 2^64-1. Subtracting the epoch
adjustment and dividing by 10 gives the timestamp 1833029933770955161,
which is in June 58086408216 (at just after 3am UTC). I think that’s
enough time to be going on with.
Signed-off-by: Philip Withnall <withnall@endlessm.com>
Helps: #1438
This requires some reworking of the internal g_date_time_new_from_unix()
function, since it previously operated in seconds, which wasn’t high
enough resolution — the g_get_current_time() code path used to operate
in microseconds.
Signed-off-by: Philip Withnall <withnall@endlessm.com>
Helps: #1438
They use the deprecated GTimeVal type, which is not year 2038 safe, so
have to be deprecated.
Signed-off-by: Philip Withnall <withnall@endlessm.com>
Helps: #1438
These are alternatives to g_file_info_{get,set}_modification_time(),
which will soon be deprecated due to using the deprecated GTimeVal
type, which is not year 2038 safe.
The new APIs take a GDateTime instead.
Signed-off-by: Philip Withnall <withnall@endlessm.com>
Helps: #1438
