[Numpy-discussion] datetime64 y2k38 bug
Fri Sep 30 18:38:03 CDT 2011
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 8:52 PM, <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 11:13 PM, Charles R Harris
> <email@example.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 9:08 PM, Charles R Harris
> > <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >> On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 6:32 PM, Benjamin Root <email@example.com> 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
> >>> datetime is supposed to be 64-bits, but I guess there is some
> >>> 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
> >> there is a movement afoot to fix the time_t structure on 32 bit machines
> >> Linux. You've got to wonder, what were the POSIX people thinking?
> > See comments here.
> 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)
I've added a hack to try and work around this problem to the
datetime-cleanup pull request:
Basically, for years >= 2038, it uses the year 2036 or 2037 (depending on
whether it's a leap year), then adds the year offset back on. Everything
already worked fine for me on my 64-bit platform, so it needs testing to
confirm the fix works.
> > Chuck
> > _______________________________________________
> > NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> > NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
> > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NumPy-Discussion