On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 8:52 PM, <josef.pktd@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 11:13 PM, Charles R Harris

<charlesr.harris@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 9:08 PM, Charles R Harris
> <charlesr.harris@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 6:32 PM, Benjamin Root <ben.root@ou.edu> 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 the
>>> datetime is supposed to be 64-bits, but I guess there is some arch-dependent
>>> 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 that
>> there is a movement afoot to fix the time_t structure on 32 bit machines for
>> Linux. You've got to wonder, what were the POSIX people thinking?
>>
>
> See comments here.

<OT>

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)

Josef

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.

-Mark

>
> Chuck
>
> _______________________________________________
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
>
>
_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion