[Impala-ASF-CR] IMPALA-5031: signed overflow in TimestampValue

["Jim Apple (Code Review)" <ge...@cloudera.org>]

Jim Apple has posted comments on this change. ( http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/11919 )

Change subject: IMPALA-5031: signed overflow in TimestampValue
......................................................................


Patch Set 1:

(1 comment)

http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/11919/1/be/src/runtime/timestamp-value.inline.h
File be/src/runtime/timestamp-value.inline.h:

http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/11919/1/be/src/runtime/timestamp-value.inline.h@66
PS1, Line 66: int64_t nanos
> Some explanation for the reason why I did not care about overflow when I la
A couple of clarifying questions:

When you say "all (non-test) callers pass int32/uint32", so you mean as the value of nanos or as the value of unix time?

When you say "overflow of unix_time is only possible near the min/max value representable on 64 bits", are the "64 bits" you're referring to the ones in unix_time?

When you say "changing the interface to handle nanos only in the -999'999'999 .. + 999'999'999 range", you mean adding a comment and a DCHECK and changing callers if necessary, or do you mean something else about the interface?

When you say "This would mean that unix_time would be affected only in the negative case", can you explain why?



-- 
To view, visit http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/11919
To unsubscribe, visit http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/settings

Gerrit-Project: Impala-ASF
Gerrit-Branch: master
Gerrit-MessageType: comment
Gerrit-Change-Id: Iaad158e6634314a5690a43a0cc04426c1aba8f41
Gerrit-Change-Number: 11919
Gerrit-PatchSet: 1
Gerrit-Owner: Jim Apple <jb...@apache.org>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Csaba Ringhofer <cs...@cloudera.com>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Impala Public Jenkins <im...@cloudera.com>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Jim Apple <jb...@apache.org>
Gerrit-Comment-Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2019 19:31:38 +0000
Gerrit-HasComments: Yes