[Toybox] Stat %Z - What are valid values?

2016-12-30 Thread darken
I've seen a value of "18446744072363093454" for stat %Z (seconds since epoch), for some files on a users device (Android 6.01). This seems suspiciously large and I'm wondering what the valid range for this value is. What range is valid for the filesystem to return and what value range can toybox

Re: [Toybox] [landley/toybox] Help building toybox with the NDK/bionic (#43)

2016-12-30 Thread Rob Landley
On 12/27/2016 02:49 PM, enh wrote: > On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 1:21 AM, Rob Landley wrote: >> I'm trying to improve upon "Elliott will tell me if I screwed up the >> android build", which seems impolite somehow... > > although i'd rather triage Android build issues myself rather

Re: [Toybox] Stat %Z - What are valid values?

2016-12-30 Thread Rob Landley
On 12/30/2016 01:39 PM, enh wrote: > 1928-04-26 17:31:55.746667836 18446744072394174731 Really we can partially blame posix here for not specifying whether time_t is signed or unsigned. (If it's unsigned it can't represent times before January 1, 1970, as the code on the left is doing. And there

Re: [Toybox] [landley/toybox] Help building toybox with the NDK/bionic (#43)

2016-12-30 Thread enh
On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 12:46 PM, Rob Landley wrote: > On 12/27/2016 02:49 PM, enh wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 1:21 AM, Rob Landley wrote: >>> I'm trying to improve upon "Elliott will tell me if I screwed up the >>> android build", which seems impolite

Re: [Toybox] Stat %Z - What are valid values?

2016-12-30 Thread enh
time_t on 32-bit Android is 32 bits. that particular value looks like a sign-extension of 0xAFBEADCE, which is still some time in 2063. (so i'd assume this device's clock is set wrong, and i'd assume -- since this is presumably a 32-bit device with a signed 32-bit time_t -- that that's going to

Re: [Toybox] Stat %Z - What are valid values?

2016-12-30 Thread Rob Landley
I have negotiated a 3 day weekend for the holidays! Starting today. Ok, catching up... On 12/30/2016 01:39 PM, enh wrote: > time_t on 32-bit Android is 32 bits. > > that particular value looks like a sign-extension of 0xAFBEADCE, which > is still some time in 2063. Or if it's signed, that's