Eric S Fraga wrote:
> This is a sort of bug report but possibly more a curiosity...
>
> I imagine this has something to do with time 0 in Unix but I cannot seem
> to be able to enter any date earlier than 1 Jan 1970 using C-c! (say).
> However, once I have entered a date (later than that), I can
Hi,
Nick Dokos writes:
> So I'd guess raising an exception might be the simplest way to deal with
> this. Here's a patch to try out:
This patch has side-effects that Carsten have been recently exploring a
bit. Those side-effects seem to depend on how Emacs has been compiled.
For now it's best
On Mar 11, 2011, at 9:31 AM, Bastien wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Nick Dokos writes:
>
>> So I'd guess raising an exception might be the simplest way to deal with
>> this. Here's a patch to try out:
>
> This patch has side-effects that Carsten have been recently exploring a
> bit. Those side-effects see
Nick Dokos writes:
> Eric S Fraga wrote:
>
>> This is a sort of bug report but possibly more a curiosity...
>>
>> I imagine this has something to do with time 0 in Unix but I cannot seem
>> to be able to enter any date earlier than 1 Jan 1970 using C-c! (say).
>> However, once I have entered a
On Mar 11, 2011, at 9:47 AM, Eric S Fraga wrote:
> Nick Dokos writes:
>
>> Eric S Fraga wrote:
>>
>>> This is a sort of bug report but possibly more a curiosity...
>>>
>>> I imagine this has something to do with time 0 in Unix but I cannot seem
>>> to be able to enter any date earlier than 1
Carsten Dominik writes:
[...]
> THis is exactly the point, that it depends on how Emacs was compiled,
> and what kind of integer is used in the date representation. Signed
> or unsigend, 32 or 64 bits (I think).
Yes, that makes sense.
> For example, Bastien can represent dates before 1970. I
Hi,
I asked in emacs-develop and got:
> by Andreas Schwabon 2011-03-11T13:19:43+00:00.
>
> If your system's time-t is a signed 32-bit integer then your system is
> able to represent times between 1901-12-13 20:45:53 UTC and 2038-01-19
> 03:14:07 UTC. If your system's time-t is an unsigned 32-bit
Eric S Fraga wrote:
> > So I'd guess raising an exception might be the simplest way to deal with
> > this. Here's a patch to try out:
>
> This seems to work fine. Thanks.
>
Maybe not - see Bastien's mail.
> I am glad, however, that I can enter any date and then use the S-
> etc. keys to get
Carsten Dominik wrote:
> THis is exactly the point, that it depends on how Emacs was compiled, and
> what kind of integer is used in the date representation. Signed or unsigend,
> 32 or 64 bits (I think).
>
> For example, Bastien can represent dates before 1970. I cannot.
> I can represent d
> So I am not sure what 64 bit systems do now or in the future, but
> it seems that we need to live with a restriction for now.
> Maybe this should be documented somewhere.
>
> - Carsten
Most 64-bit systems use a 64-bit int. All of the 64-bit Linux systems
that I've used use a signed 64-bit int
Hi everyone,
On 11.3.2011, at 09:31, Bastien wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Nick Dokos writes:
>
>> So I'd guess raising an exception might be the simplest way to deal with
>> this. Here's a patch to try out:
>
> This patch has side-effects that Carsten have been recently exploring a
> bit. Those side-eff
Carsten Dominik writes:
[...]
> I am attaching a patch which tries to implement some kind of a
> solution for this problem. The patch introduces a new variable
> which will allow you to use dates outside the safe range 1970-2037
Thanks Carsten.
[...]
> The patch also introduces a warning wit
Hi Bastien,
please let me know if you want this patch installed.
- Carsten
On 13.3.2011, at 21:08, Eric S Fraga wrote:
> Carsten Dominik writes:
>
> [...]
>
>> I am attaching a patch which tries to implement some kind of a
>> solution for this problem. The patch introduces a new variable
>>
Hi Carsten,
Carsten Dominik writes:
> please let me know if you want this patch installed.
I won't have time to have a close look at this before tomorrow
morning, as I'm still out on a week-end.
But please go ahead if you think it's okay.
Best,
--
Bastien
On Mar 11, 2011, at 5:30 PM, Nick Dokos wrote:
> Carsten Dominik wrote:
>
>
>> THis is exactly the point, that it depends on how Emacs was compiled, and
>> what kind of integer is used in the date representation. Signed or
>> unsigend, 32 or 64 bits (I think).
>>
>> For example, Bastien ca
Carsten Dominik wrote:
>
> On Mar 11, 2011, at 5:30 PM, Nick Dokos wrote:
>
> > Carsten Dominik wrote:
> >
> >
> >> THis is exactly the point, that it depends on how Emacs was compiled, and
> >> what kind of integer is used in the date representation. Signed or
> >> unsigend, 32 or 64 bit
On Mar 14, 2011, at 4:11 PM, Nick Dokos wrote:
> Carsten Dominik wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mar 11, 2011, at 5:30 PM, Nick Dokos wrote:
>>
>>> Carsten Dominik wrote:
>>>
>>>
THis is exactly the point, that it depends on how Emacs was compiled, and
what kind of integer is used in the date
Carsten Dominik wrote:
> > Ah, OK - thanks! I looked in current-time, saw the 0x mask and I
> > thought that the extra bits are truncated, but apparently not: I need to
> > go back and look at the C rules again.
>
> I have no idea what you are talking about :)
>
You think I do? :)
I was
Nick Dokos writes:
> I was referring to the C code implementing current-time (which, btw, has been
> changed in latest):
>
> ,
> | DEFUN ("current-time", Fcurrent_time, Scurrent_time, 0, 0, 0,
> |doc: /* Return the current time, as the number of seconds since
> 1970-01-01 00:00:00.
>
On Mar 14, 2011, at 7:12 PM, Achim Gratz wrote:
> Nick Dokos writes:
>> I was referring to the C code implementing current-time (which, btw, has been
>> changed in latest):
>>
>> ,
>> | DEFUN ("current-time", Fcurrent_time, Scurrent_time, 0, 0, 0,
>> |doc: /* Return the current time
20 matches
Mail list logo
