From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F8026DE0355 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2020 17:56:03 -0800 (PST) Authentication-Results: arlo.cworth.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="jzj99tW6"; dkim-atps=neutral X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.396 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.396 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.195, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=disabled Received: from arlo.cworth.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (arlo.cworth.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L6lUmBm8UEqM for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2020 17:56:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lj1-f195.google.com (mail-lj1-f195.google.com [209.85.208.195]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A1FE6DE02D3 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2020 17:56:01 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lj1-f195.google.com with SMTP id f25so1245692ljg.12 for ; Fri, 07 Feb 2020 17:56:01 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding; bh=5y1ODcYXdkk29rqfPkfSFnuxpI5IDfeA9RIMOQKXuRs=; b=jzj99tW6lLaomvsQ//IwAUv2nkkyJiK0GDDZWHmmJmWY/r0hYmvmk1gpVMBHjuVB/y /P2GxRbyVBD5m/E3vTiMP1gzl2Luq2k2b+2uc7z8ay00ZfjnJQ2hHCjP8hcWG9tWQ5KZ nqD+qk+2f2wr5W6Myf4ppMm8Dl1VWpXxb6zsFETURR1Htm38Tmqrr3NESJfvcVfXURXf tIUL5pvrH3pvwlfwZL9Rg88ailxJryYqiHXC1R1U4dZuolgMCWe60CCdxW/q/8UP80B4 D5lBZZ8kGyIH8OmoiIStjtR9y+xzwfkFEUBdmnOHWC9qBxzLk4X8D21NMMQ9x7Ihgq9h HJ/A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-disposition :content-transfer-encoding; bh=5y1ODcYXdkk29rqfPkfSFnuxpI5IDfeA9RIMOQKXuRs=; b=Xu9p8NWGEXT85tQmDCX9JCBVndjzBvhRExBMe+Coi5zdlb0cIfPrfN7QKLxpE70J9t Lg53tHLVFuByildCXWRMTN4nQKgUClPqw/gVLum6qX30duPH2n0OcZWIrT447kHi6PWY PuHLpGVz9+x48yLDkYmxCrRpJxwxm3JL7GgFSYqrLqIVtmd7GWeIoOJDZzvRQX3PN2Ao ZkW06pDJiRuxPPU9ln99W/5Yk42IptZDDO8jFlL+zhlou83TFgx9Nw64wRbS+8Has5WC e6MYytidlIaakJsy6ZqQW2POeovfn3HgjAC8QzewQyHW3KOPpTruXbbxXk5KkYznhIFd BvOg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUgp6Fqz6/9yus2A74shRlxkC+zKLnl2DG6/O81VBG11hQbG2Vp t5coAL3+ZcGeXjA4BV6I3WXuH8Y8 X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz+UUzF/vwOKMSum02/U4nvLiffpgrn3bi+R7CXtNS2Qsbj42YPDYSItH/VmFSHDcUJ93hzQg== X-Received: by 2002:a2e:b0c4:: with SMTP id g4mr1233051ljl.83.1581126959674; Fri, 07 Feb 2020 17:55:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([46.243.247.236]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v7sm1832330lfa.10.2020.02.07.17.55.57 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 07 Feb 2020 17:55:59 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2020 12:55:54 +1100 Message-ID: <20200208125554.GD1447@kola.localdomain> From: Peter Wang To: David Bremner Cc: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Subject: Re: timestamp overflows sprinter interface In-Reply-To: <87lfpjaivy.fsf@tethera.net> References: <20200130200231.GB4015@kurr.localdomain> <87lfpjaivy.fsf@tethera.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2020 01:56:03 -0000 On Mon, 03 Feb 2020 09:40:49 -0400, David Bremner wrote: > Peter Wang writes: > > > Hi, > > > > On a system where time_t is 64-bit and 'int' is a signed 32-bit integer > > type, timestamps beyond some time in 2038 will be serialised to a > > negative value. > > I admire your forward thinking! Nah, someone reported an issue with my mail client when viewing a message dated 09 Dec 2058. > > > > > The simplest solution appears to be to change the type in the sprinter > > method to int64_t: > > > > void (*integer)(struct sprinter *, int64_t); > > > > Any other suggestions? > > Since this is an internal API, I don't really see a big problem with > doing this. I've sent a patch. Peter