On Oct 3, 2015 7:03 AM, "Dirk Hohndel" <d...@hohndel.org> wrote:
>
> Which then means that the old code was actually correct and the fix and
> the fix of the fix were actually wrong?
Well, the final add (to convert from 2000-based numbers to 1970-based ones)
should still be done in timestamp_t. Otherwise you overflow in signed int
in 2038 (the Unix 32-bit time_t overflow date)
So I think the only thing that needs to be fixed is to change the uint32_t
to just a int32_t.
Linus
_______________________________________________
subsurface mailing list
subsurface@subsurface-divelog.org
http://lists.subsurface-divelog.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/subsurface
