date: fix -d with relative dates and timezone abbreviations

[yachi]

Fixes #10788

try_parse_with_abbreviation resolved relative dates like "yesterday" against the system clock instead of the caller-provided reference time. Pass now through so both code paths use the same reference.

[github-actions]

GNU testsuite comparison:

Note: The gnu test tests/pr/bounded-memory is now being skipped but was previously passing.
Note: The gnu test tests/printf/printf-surprise is now being skipped but was previously passing.
Note: The gnu test tests/unexpand/bounded-memory is now being skipped but was previously passing.
Congrats! The gnu test tests/env/env-signal-handler is now passing!

[github-actions]

GNU testsuite comparison:

Congrats! The gnu test tests/env/env-signal-handler is now passing!

[ChrisDryden]

The changes look great to me, it just has a merge conflict with the latest date changes.

[ChrisDryden]

Darn something is quite wrong, it shows in the aggregate results that all of the GNU date tests are passing, debug should still be failing.

[github-actions]

GNU testsuite comparison:

GNU test failed: tests/misc/io-errors. tests/misc/io-errors is passing on 'main'. Maybe you have to rebase?
Skipping an intermittent issue tests/tail/follow-name (passes in this run but fails in the 'main' branch)
Congrats! The gnu test tests/tail/tail-n0f is now passing!

[sylvestre]

please also add a test in tests/by-util/test_date.rs

[yachi]

added

[codspeed-hq]

Merging this PR will degrade performance by 5.25%

⚡ 2 improved benchmarks
❌ 1 regressed benchmark
✅ 285 untouched benchmarks
⏩ 38 skipped benchmarks¹

⚠️ Please fix the performance issues or acknowledge them on CodSpeed.

Performance Changes

	Mode	Benchmark	BASE	HEAD	Efficiency
⚡	Simulation	mv_force_overwrite	147.6 ms	142 ms	+3.91%
❌	Simulation	split_number_chunks	254.7 µs	268.9 µs	-5.25%
⚡	Simulation	cp_large_file[16]	391.9 µs	378.8 µs	+3.47%

---

_{Comparing yachi:fix-date-abbreviation-relative-date (a50d425) with main (9922135)²}

Footnotes

1. 38 benchmarks were skipped, so the baseline results were used instead. If they were deleted from the codebase, click here and archive them to remove them from the performance reports. ↩

2. No successful run was found on main (87c292f) during the generation of this report, so 9922135 was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩

[cakebaker]

Thanks!