On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 05:00:50PM +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 3:07 PM Miroslav Lichvar <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > The 32-bit integer part of the NTP timestamp overflows in year 2036, > > > which starts the second NTP era. > > > > > + /* Shift timestamps before 1970 to the second NTP era (2036-2106) > > > */ > > > + if (lfp.int_partl < OFFSET_1900_1970) > > > + ret += (double)UINT_MAX + 1.0; > > > > Shouldn't this be 0xffffffff instead of UINT_MAX? > > > > What you are doing here is treating 0...OFFSET_1900_1970 > > as if there is a carry bit in int_partl, right? > > And int_partl is not unit_t. It's uint32_t. Thus you need to add > > (1<<32).
Right, that was the intention, but I didn't realize it needs to work on systems where int is not 32-bit. Thanks for fixing it. > Speaking of this... these are bugs, no? Yes. > ret = (double)lfp.int_partl + ((double)lfp.fractionl / UINT_MAX); In this case it probably didn't matter as the values are too large to contain the lowest bits of the fraction in the double format. > ... > ret = (double)sfp.int_parts + ((double)sfp.fractions / USHRT_MAX); -- Miroslav Lichvar _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
