submitted 3 days ago by sabreW4K3@lazysoci.al to c/linux@programming.dev

15 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] over_clox@lemmy.world 15 points 3 days ago

'...(potentially setting time back to 1900)...'

From my understanding, unless I'm mistaken, wouldn't the 32 bit time reset back to 1970 after the overflow/rollover?

[-] fargeol@lemmy.world 24 points 3 days ago

Timestamps that use signed int will go back to 1901 (-2,147,483,647)

[-] over_clox@lemmy.world 11 points 3 days ago

Oh shit, I missed that part, I always thought it was an unsigned int.. 🤦‍♂️

Well today I learned 👍

[-] schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 3 days ago

you're wrong, but so was the article, so I guess that cancels out :D it's late 1901

[-] eah@programming.dev 17 points 3 days ago

There are 2 hard problems in computer science: cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-1 errors.

[-] glimse@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

That's just a really solid joke.

this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2025

86 points (100.0% liked)

Linux

8652 readers

498 users here now

A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system (except the memes!)

Also, check out:

Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS