Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [date_time] int64 overflow bug with subsecond duration
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-02-25 15:41:30

On 02/25/2010 06:44 PM, Zachary Turner wrote:
> Consider the following code, very simple in nature:
> static const boost::gregorian::date windows_epoch_base(1601, 1, 1);
> date_time d(windows_epoch_base, microseconds(12908391903991608));
> This should resolve to sometime in early 2010
> Now, the problem is that this number is already really big, not that many
> factors of 10 away from the int64 overflow boundary. microseconds() is
> really just the subsecond_duration<> template, and on my machine it's being
> parameterized as subsecond_duration<boost::posix_time::time_duration,
> 1000000>. The code for the constructor is as follows:
> explicit subsecond_duration(boost::int64_t ss)
> : base_duration(0,0,0, ss*traits_type::res_adjust() / frac_of_second)
> {}
> res_adjust is also resolving to 1000000. So compiler is
> doing 12908391903991608*res_adjust first, which causes an overflow. I think
> it should be doing ss * (traits_type::res_adjust() / frac_of_second)
> instead.
> I don't know a whole lot about date_time internals, so I thought I would ask
> here before just submitting a bug. Is the proposed fix correct? I made the
> change locally and it does indeed appear to resolve the problem.

I think there was a ticket or two about this. The problem with adding
the parenthesis is that there's a possible truncation of the division
result. This may not be the case for your particular case, but I don't
think this is good enough as a general solution.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at