On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 11:13 PM, Charles R Harris <charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 9:08 PM, Charles R Harris > <charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 6:32 PM, Benjamin Root <ben.r...@ou.edu> wrote: >>> >>> I was working on adding some test cases in numpy for the argmin/max >>> functions with some datetime64s. I found that on my 32-bit machine, it >>> fails to parse a date past the Y2.038k date. I find this odd because the >>> datetime is supposed to be 64-bits, but I guess there is some arch-dependent >>> code somewhere? >>> >> >> I think that is actually POSIX for the time_t structure. Which is not to >> say it's good ;) Google UNIX Year 2038 problem. ISTR reading recently that >> there is a movement afoot to fix the time_t structure on 32 bit machines for >> Linux. You've got to wonder, what were the POSIX people thinking? >> > > See comments here.
<OT> Thanks for the entertaining link " I think it's still perfectly valid to say "you're a moron, and we need to fix it" " (just a quote, doesn't apply to the python community) Josef > > Chuck > > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion > > _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
