Re: Non-urgent issue with fs/isofs/util.c

Helge Hafting (helge.hafting@daldata.no)
Fri, 18 Sep 1998 10:34:15 +0100


In <19980918151457.C9740@harvestroad.com.au>, on 09/18/98
at 03:14 PM, Ian McKellar <imckellar@harvestroad.com.au> said:

>Hi,

>The iso_date function in fs/isofs/util.c doesn't correctly handle leap
>years.

>Well, it doesn't handle the year 2100 - which according to the code is a
>leap year, but according to the commonly accepted rules is not.

>I don't think we need to be to concerned right now, but changing:
> if (((year+2) % 4) == 0 && month > 2)
>to:
> if (((year+2) % 4) == 0 && month > 2 && year != 130) should
>fix it.
The equivalent code
if (!((year+2) & 3) && month > 2 && year != 130) is probably
faster. The somewhat expensive mod operator is
replaced by a bitwise "and", that is faster on most platforms.

Helge Hafting

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------
helge.hafting@daldata.no
-----------------------------------------------------------

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/