Re: [Lynx-dev] lynx and amazon?

[Bela Lubkin]

Ian Collier wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 04:55:38PM +0000, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> > Ian Collier dixit:
> > >and moreover, the later 2039 ones caused the earlier 2036 ones to be 
> > >deleted.
> 
> > Oooooh, do you have a system with 32-bit time_t?
> 
> Well... no.  This is x86_64 and the default size of time_t is 64 bits.
> The Lynx binary is a 64-bit binary.  I don't know how it was compiled.

Be that as it may -- the 32-bit rollover hypothesis still seems strong
to me.  2036 cookies get recorded, 2039 don't.

Even with a 64-bit binary, it may be that some part of either Lynx
itself, or the libraries on that particular system, pass the date
through a 32-bit bottleneck at some point.  (Yes, it could be caused by
Lynx code even if someone else demonstrated not having this issue on
*their* 64-bit Lynx: the date computation may at some point pass through
a system-header-provided data type which for some reason is 32-bit on
one build and 64 on the other.)

>Bela<