[Patches] [ python-Patches-1689402 ] Replace time_t by Py_time_t

[SourceForge.net]

Patches item #1689402, was opened at 2007-03-27 20:51
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by tiran
You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=305470&aid=1689402&group_id=5470

Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread,
including the initial issue submission, for this request,
not just the latest update.
Category: Core (C code)
Group: Python 2.6
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Private: No
Submitted By: Christian Heimes (tiran)
Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody)
Summary: Replace time_t by Py_time_t

Initial Comment:
In the thread "datetime module enhancements" Guido and others said that it is unpythonic to limit timestamp (seconds since Epoch) to an signed int with 32bit.

http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.devel/86750

I've made a patch that introduces a new type Py_time_t as a first step to increase the size of time stamps. For now it's just an alias for time_t.

  typedef time_t Py_time_t;

I'm proposing to change time_t in two steps:

Python 2.6:
Replace every occurrence of time_t by Py_time_t and give third party authors time to change their software

Python 2.7 / 3000:
Change Py_time_t to a signed 64bit int on all platforms and provide the necessary workaround for platforms with a 32bit time_t.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

>Comment By: Christian Heimes (tiran)
Date: 2007-03-28 16:48

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=560817
Originator: YES

Yes, you are right. There is no place where the ptch checks for truncating
- because the patch doesn't change the size of time_t. The current patch
defines Py_time_t is an alias for time_t so 3rd party authors can update
their software to use Py_time_t instead of time_t in Python 2.6.

Also it gives me time to study the impacts on systems with a 32bit time_t
and to get feedback from core developers. May we take the discussion to
python-ideas? I've started a thread yesterday.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Martin v. Löwis (loewis)
Date: 2007-03-28 13:41

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=21627
Originator: NO

After a shallow review, I think the patch is incorrect. There must be
places where a Py_time_t may get truncated to a time_t; in these places, no
silent truncation should occur, but an exception be raised. I can find no
place in the patch where this happens.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=305470&aid=1689402&group_id=5470