[PATCH] time.2: wfix regarding year-2038

[PATCH] time.2: wfix regarding year-2038

[Viet Than]

Hi,

The old description led me to believe 2038-01-19 03:14:08 UTC==2**31
therefore would still be valid, and that undefined behavior would
begin from 2038-01-19 03:14:09 UTC.
Searched up to be sure.
Modified wording to be more precise.

Signed-off-by: Viet Than <thanhoangviet@gmail.com>

---
 man2/time.2 | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/man2/time.2 b/man2/time.2
index 059222dcd..f15dfa325 100644
--- a/man2/time.2
+++ b/man2/time.2
@@ -94,7 +94,7 @@ specified as NULL cannot fail with the error
 even on ABIs where
 .I time_t
 is a signed 32-bit integer and the clock ticks past the time 2**31
-(2038-01-19 03:14:08 UTC, ignoring leap seconds).
+(occurs when past 2038-01-19 03:14:07 UTC, ignoring leap seconds).
 (POSIX.1 permits, but does not require, the
 .B EOVERFLOW
 error in the case where the seconds since the Epoch will not fit in
--
2.25.1

Re: [PATCH] time.2: wfix regarding year-2038

[Jakub Wilk]

* Viet Than <thanhoangviet@gmail.com>, 2021-07-24, 11:52:
>The old description led me to believe 2038-01-19 03:14:08 UTC==2**31

This is correct.

>therefore would still be valid,

No, 2**31 is the first value that doesn't fit 32-bit time_t.

> is a signed 32-bit integer and the clock ticks past the time 2**31
>-(2038-01-19 03:14:08 UTC, ignoring leap seconds).

I suppose this should say "...the clock reaches the time 2**31",
and then we can keep the parenthetical as is.

-- 
Jakub Wilk

[PATCH v2] time.2: wfix regarding year-2038

[Viet Than]

> I suppose this should say "...the clock reaches the time 2**31",
> and then we can keep the parenthetical as is.
Thanks for the insight!  here's the new patch

Cc: Jakub Wilk <jwilk@jwilk.net>
Signed-off-by: Viet Than <thanhoangviet@gmail.com>

---
man2/time.2 | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/man2/time.2 b/man2/time.2
index 059222dcd..a7410bfc8 100644
--- a/man2/time.2
+++ b/man2/time.2
@@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ specified as NULL cannot fail with the error
.BR EOVERFLOW ,
even on ABIs where
.I time_t
-is a signed 32-bit integer and the clock ticks past the time 2**31
+is a signed 32-bit integer and the clock reaches at or beyond the time 2**31
(2038-01-19 03:14:08 UTC, ignoring leap seconds).
(POSIX.1 permits, but does not require, the
.B EOVERFLOW
-- 
2.25.1

Re: [PATCH v2] time.2: wfix regarding year-2038

[Alejandro Colomar (man-pages)]

Hi Viet, Jakub,

On 7/25/21 1:51 AM, Viet Than wrote:
>> I suppose this should say "...the clock reaches the time 2**31",
>> and then we can keep the parenthetical as is.
> Thanks for the insight!  here's the new patch

Thanks for the review, Jakub!

> 
> Cc: Jakub Wilk <jwilk@jwilk.net>
> Signed-off-by: Viet Than <thanhoangviet@gmail.com>
> 

Patch applied (manually as it was corrupt).

Thanks,

Alex

> ---
> man2/time.2 | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/man2/time.2 b/man2/time.2
> index 059222dcd..a7410bfc8 100644
> --- a/man2/time.2
> +++ b/man2/time.2
> @@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ specified as NULL cannot fail with the error
> .BR EOVERFLOW ,
> even on ABIs where
> .I time_t
> -is a signed 32-bit integer and the clock ticks past the time 2**31
> +is a signed 32-bit integer and the clock reaches at or beyond the time 2**31
> (2038-01-19 03:14:08 UTC, ignoring leap seconds).
> (POSIX.1 permits, but does not require, the
> .B EOVERFLOW
> 

-- 
Alejandro Colomar
Linux man-pages comaintainer; https://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
http://www.alejandro-colomar.es/