Re: XEmacs is not 64-bit clean (was Re: Build failure, xemacs-21.1.2 on rh6-based linux-alpha-unknown)
- First Post
- Replies
- Stats
-
Go to
- ----- 2025 -----
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2024 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2023 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2022 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2021 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2020 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2019 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2018 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2017 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2016 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2015 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2014 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2013 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2012 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2011 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2010 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2009 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2008 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2007 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2006 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2005 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2004 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2003 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2002 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2001 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2000 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 1999 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 1998 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
>>>> "sb" == SL Baur <steve(a)xemacs.org>
writes:
sb> [1] Speaking of which, is it a standard POSIX feature that
negative
sb> times get treated as being before the epoch?
sb> $ cat /usr/tmp/bug.c
sb> main()
sb> {
sb> long int time = 0x7fffffff;
sb> long int time2 = 0x80000000;
sb> printf("Death at %s", ctime(&time));
sb> printf("Afterlife at %s", ctime(&time2));
sb> }
sb> $ /usr/tmp/bug
sb> Death at Tue Jan 19 12:14:07 2038
sb> Afterlife at Sat Dec 14 05:45:52 1901
My solaris 2.5.1 machine says
Death at Mon Jan 18 22:14:07 2038
Afterlife at Mon Jan 18 23:14:08 2038
Ray
Valdis Kl=?iso8859-4?Q?=BA?=tnieks
Friday, 18 June
Fri, 18 Jun
5:02 a.m.
New subject: XEmacs is not 64-bit clean (was Re: Build failure, xemacs-21.1.2 on rh6-based linux-alpha-unknown)
On 17 Jun 1999 19:31:01 EDT, Raymond Toy <toy(a)rtp.ericsson.se> said:
My solaris 2.5.1 machine says
Death at Mon Jan 18 22:14:07 2038
Afterlife at Mon Jan 18 23:14:08 2038
Ditto for AIX 4.3.2.
However, remember that Steve is in a different timezone,
and there's a boundary condition here.
[~]1 TZ=EST5EDT ./a.out
Death at Mon Jan 18 22:14:07 2038
Afterlife at Mon Jan 18 22:14:08 2038
[~]1 TZ=EST1EDT ./a.out
Death at Tue Jan 19 02:14:07 2038
Afterlife at Tue Jan 19 02:14:08 2038
[~]1 TZ=EST0EDT ./a.out
Death at Tue Jan 19 03:14:07 2038
Afterlife at Fri Dec 13 20:45:52 1901
Steve is at +0900, EDT is -0400. So where Steve is,
the timezone causes an overflow in ctime, but where
I and Raymond are, subtracting off the 4 hour offset gives just
enough headroom that ctime doesn't overflow.
/Valdis
Justin Vallon
Friday, 18 June
Fri, 18 Jun
7:12 a.m.
New subject: XEmacs is not 64-bit clean (was Re: Build failure, xemacs-21.1.2 on rh6-based linux-alpha-unknown)
On 17 Jun 1999, Raymond Toy wrote:
>>>>> "sb" == SL Baur
<steve(a)xemacs.org> writes:
sb> [1] Speaking of which, is it a standard POSIX feature that negative
sb> times get treated as being before the epoch?
sb> $ cat /usr/tmp/bug.c
sb> main()
sb> {
sb> long int time = 0x7fffffff;
sb> long int time2 = 0x80000000;
sb> printf("Death at %s", ctime(&time));
sb> printf("Afterlife at %s", ctime(&time2));
sb> }
sb> $ /usr/tmp/bug
sb> Death at Tue Jan 19 12:14:07 2038
sb> Afterlife at Sat Dec 14 05:45:52 1901
My solaris 2.5.1 machine says
Death at Mon Jan 18 22:14:07 2038
Afterlife at Mon Jan 18 23:14:08 2038
That's curious. Afterlife is Death + 01:00:01. Typo?
My RedHat R4 says:
$ ./bug
Death at Mon Jan 18 22:14:07 2038
Afterlife at Fri Dec 13 15:45:52 1901
[ At GMT-4 ]
-Justin
vallon(a)mindspring.com
9437
days inactive
9438
days old
2 comments
3 participants
tags (0)
participants (3)
-
Justin Vallon -
Raymond Toy -
Valdis Kl=?iso8859-4?Q?=BA?=tnieks