Re: coreutils-8.14.116-1e18d on Linux/HPPA

[Pádraig Brady]

On 01/05/2012 12:39 AM, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Hi Pádraig,
> 
>> Hopefully the attached avoids this.
> 
> Your patch avoids the first 3 "fail=1" occurrences, but not the fourth one:
> 
>   + timeout 2.34e+5d sleep 0
>   + test 124 = 0
>   + fail=1

Oops right.

> But is this really the desirable workaround? Do people want to have
> "timeout 2.34e+5d sleep 0" really do different things on Linux/hppa
> than on Linux/x86?

No. But as long as the kernel gets fixed some reasonable time
before 2038, we're OK.  I'll report the bug tomorrow.

> Why not add a workaround to the 'timeout' program, rather than to the tests?

Because I'd rather have messy tests than messy code.

> Your guess about an overflow seems correct:
> 
> $ ./timeout 821760555 sleep 0 ; echo $?
> t = 1325723090, duration_ceil = 821760555
> 0
> $ ./timeout 821760557 sleep 0 ; echo $?
> t = 1325723093, duration_ceil = 821760557
> 124
> 
> The limit appears to be INT_MAX.

Oh, so time_t is 64 bit there?

> The following patch fixes it for me.

> +#if defined __linux__ && defined __hppa__
> +  /* Work around an overflow that happens when the end date is beyond 2038.  
> */
> +  time_t t = time (NULL);
> +  if (t >= 0 && t <= INT_MAX && duration > (double) (INT_MAX - t))
> +    duration = (double) (INT_MAX - t);
> +#endif

Not too onerous I suppose.
I'll sleep on it :)

cheers,
Pádraig.