Continue having a tor_gmtime_impl() unit test so that we can detect
any problems in our replacement function; add a new test function to
make sure that gmtime<->timegm are a round-trip on now-ish times.
This is a fix for bug #40383, wherein we ran into trouble because
tor_timegm() does not believe that time_t should include a count of
leap seconds, but FreeBSD's gmtime believes that it should. This
disagreement meant that for a certain amount of time each day,
instead of calculating the most recent midnight, our voting-schedule
functions would calculate the second-most-recent midnight, and lead
to an assertion failure.
I am calling this a bugfix on 0.2.0.3-alpha when we first started
calculating our voting schedule in this way.
In versions <=2.69, according to the autoconf docs, AC_PROG_CC_C99
is needed with some compilers, if they require extra arguments to
build C99 programs. In versions >=2.70, AC_PROG_CC checks for these
compilers automatically, and so the AC_PROG_CC_C99 macro is
obsolete.
So, what can you do if you want your script to work right with both
autoconf versions? IIUC, neither including AC_PROG_CC_C99 macro nor
leaving it out will give you the right behavior with both versions.
It looks like you need to look at the autoconf version explicitly.
(Now, the autoconf manual implies that it's "against autoconf
philosophy" to look at the autoconf version rather than trying the
behavior to see if it works, but they don't actually tell you how to
detect recoverably at autoconf-time whether a macro is obsolete or
not, and I can't find a way to do that.)
So, is it safe to use m4_version_prereq, like I do here? It isn't
listed in the autoconf 2.63 manual (which is the oldest version we
support). But a mailing list message [1] (which added the
documentation back in 2008) implies that m4_version_prereq has been
there since "at least back to autoconf 2.59".
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/autoconf-patches/2008-12/msg00025.html
So I think this will work.
I am basing this patch against Tor 0.3.5 since, if autoconf 2.70
becomes widespread before 0.3.5 is unsupported, we might need this
patch to continue 0.3.5 development. But I don't think we should
backport farther than 0.4.5 until/unless that actually happens.
This is part of a fix for #40355.
