Bruno Haible wrote: > Jim Meyering wrote: >> >> time_t is 64 bits in recent NetBSD versions even on i386 platform, >> >> therefore these assertations fail on it: >> >> >> >> in lib/mktime.c: >> >> verify (long_int_year_and_yday_are_wide_enough, >> >> INT_MAX <= LONG_MAX / 2 || TIME_T_MAX <= UINT_MAX); >> > >> > I'm disabling this assertion; the code seems to be correct also with >> > 64-bit 'time_t'. >> >> I'm still leery of disabling it, but can't put my finger on a precise >> problem, so this isn't an official objection. >> >> I'm nearly certain you understand the issue, but your sentence above >> suggests it is worth clarifying: >> the possible problem is not with 64-bit time_t per se, >> but rather with the combination of that *and* a "long int" >> type that is no wider than "int". > > Yes. The naming of the variable 'long_int_year_and_yday_are_wide_enough' > sounds as if Paul intended to be able to pass time_t values into 'year1' > and 'yday1'. But this does not happen: all inputs are 'int'. > > Or maybe Paul meant that the entire time_t range can occur as result of > mktime() with given 'int' inputs (in other words, that mktime is > surjective)? I cannot see the rationale for such a requirement. > >> > This one is harder. It has already been reported for QNX [1][2]. >> > [1] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2008-01/msg00161.html >> > [2] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2009-07/msg00111.html >> > >> > Here is a proposed patch. I checked all uses of 'time_t' in getdate.y and >> > found only two conversions from time_t to 'long int', in the 'relunit' >> > rule: >> > >> > | tSDECIMAL_NUMBER tSEC_UNIT >> > { $$ = RELATIVE_TIME_0; $$.seconds = $1.tv_sec; $$.ns = $1.tv_nsec; } >> > | tUDECIMAL_NUMBER tSEC_UNIT >> > { $$ = RELATIVE_TIME_0; $$.seconds = $1.tv_sec; $$.ns = $1.tv_nsec; } >> > >> > So this patch should handle it. Jim, Eric, opinions? >> >> I confess I'm not sure it's ok, but if something breaks, >> we'll fix it and be sure to add a test case next time. >> >> So go ahead. > > The kind of breakage that we have to expect here is in the corner cases, with > specially crafted input. It's not guaranteed that such a bug will visibly > "break" something.
Of course. I was concerned not about year numbers < 2038, and probably not even time_t values < 2^32, but the corner in which year numbers approach 2^31.
