| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 27.1 | Magtape ACP and F11AACP | STAR::MEZZANO | What's up, doc? | Tue Dec 17 1996 17:40 | 5 |
| 27.2 | DECwindows | STAR::MEZZANO | What's up, doc? | Tue Dec 17 1996 17:43 | 138 |
| 27.3 | Representing dates in image idents | WIBBIN::NOYCE | Pulling weeds, pickin' stones | Wed Dec 18 1996 10:46 | 1 |
| 27.4 | ODS 1 problem. | STAR::MEZZANO | What's up, doc? | Wed Dec 18 1996 17:45 | 9 |
| 27.5 | | AMCFAC::RABAHY | dtn 471-5160, outside 1-810-347-5160 | Thu Dec 19 1996 10:41 | 3 |
| 27.6 | XQP | STAR::MEZZANO | What's up, doc? | Thu Dec 19 1996 13:20 | 49 |
| 27.7 | Digital DAP standard a problem 2 yr not 4 yr digit | RANGER::TELESETSKY | | Thu Dec 19 1996 13:34 | 39 |
| 27.8 | | AUSS::GARSON | DECcharity Program Office | Thu Dec 19 1996 16:49 | 9 |
| 27.9 | Transition Year: 57 | XDELTA::HOFFMAN | Steve, OpenVMS Engineering | Mon Dec 23 1996 11:31 | 5 |
| 27.10 | Beware sys$bintim behaviour on OpenVMS Alpha | XDELTA::HOFFMAN | Steve, OpenVMS Engineering | Fri Jan 31 1997 13:06 | 15 |
|
One of the more interesting Y2K related problems is the apparently
not (fully) documented sys$bintim behaviour on OpenVMS Alpha -- it
accepts either a two or a four digit year.
This can lead to some differences in (potentially degenerate)
application behaviour between OpenVMS VAX and OpenVMS Alpha,
particularly around code that uses sys$bintim to check the format
of the time. (Which is what one would expect to have happen -- one
otherwise needs to implement the code to check the syntax of a time
string in the application.)
This has already resulted in differences of behaviour of at least
two OpenVMS components on the two platforms.
|
| 27.11 | Documentation Error in ANSI Labeling Text... | XDELTA::HOFFMAN | Steve, OpenVMS Engineering | Fri Jan 31 1997 16:51 | 46 |
| Path:
pa.dec.com!decuac.dec.com!haven.umd.edu!news.ums.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!
!news.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!uunet!in2.uu.net!204.238.120.21!j
jump.net!grunt.dejanews.com!not-for-mail
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 11:14:32 -0600
From: [email protected]
Subject: Year 2000, revisited (again)
Newsgroups: comp.os.vms
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Organization: Deja News Usenet Posting Service
X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Jan 31 16:49:49 1997 GMT
X-Originating-IP-Addr: 194.131.253.1 ()
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/3.01Gold (X11; I; SunOS 5.4 sun4m) via proxy gateway
CERN-HTTPD/3.0 libwww/2.17
X-Authenticated-Sender: [email protected]
Lines: 29
[email protected] (Tim Shoppa) wrote a long time ago:
>In article <[email protected]>, Robert Koehler
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>I've tried both Files-11 tape labels and BACKUP tape lables with the
>>same result. For the year 2000 the two digit year field of both the
>>HDR1 and EOF1 label records becomes 00.
>>However the single leading blank of the creation date field is written
>>as an ASCII 0 (the expiration date is OK).
>>According to Guide to OpenVMS File Applications (March 1994) sections
>>1.3.1.6.1 and 1.3.1.7 this character is supposed to be a blank, not a 0.
>>However, the document goes on to state that RMS will put a zero date in
>>the date field if the year is specified as prior to 1900. Perhaps other
>>than 19xx years were not anticipated in the ANSI tape labeling standard?
>>Is this a bug or a feature?
>It's a feature.
So this means that Digital have upgraded the OS to take into account the
revised standards (ECMA-13 edition 4) without updating their
documentation? Is the upgrade 'official'?
Matt Wenham, Laser-Scan Ltd
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
|