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

[Pádraig Brady]

On 01/05/2012 04:05 AM, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Pádraig Brady wrote:
>>> No, time_t is typedefed to 'long int' (32-bit but signed) on this 
> platform.
>>
>> Right, so if time_t is changed to 64 bit there in future,
>> the test would be too restrictive?
> 
> time_t cannot be changed to 64-bit without breaking binary compatibility
> or adding lots of new versioned symbols to libc. I doubt Ulrich will do
> this for a 32-bit platform. The policy has been to do this change only
> for 64-bit platforms.
> 
> But if you want to be sure, feel free to add a condition:
>   if (sizeof (time_t) == sizeof (int) && ....)
> 
>> So I'm leaning towards the deeper probing and avoidance,
>> done in the shell script.
> 
> It does not help the robustness of shell scripts of users out there
> if you leave the bug in the 'timeout' program and just paper over the
> test failures.
> 
> Find attached a revised patch.

That's safer thanks, but...

It really goes against the grain for me,
to add stuff like this to the code unless
absolutely necessary.

In this case I don't think it's a practical issue because:

1. The failure mode is only of practical concern close to 2038
2. It adds artificial limits which will incur maintenance overhead between now 
and 2038
3. The failure mode is immediate and obvious to users
4. It's a dead end platform, last sold in 2008 and not supported after 2013
5. It's probably a trivial fix in the kernel, which has 26 years to get to users

cheers,
Pádraig.