From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Apr 23 21:16:56 2017
Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 24 Apr 2017 01:16:56 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36969 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1d2ScZ-00071W-SU
	for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 23 Apr 2017 21:16:56 -0400
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:60192)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from <zefram@fysh.org>) id 1d2ScY-00071C-QA
 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 23 Apr 2017 21:16:55 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
 (envelope-from <zefram@fysh.org>) id 1d2ScS-0002je-OK
 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 23 Apr 2017 21:16:49 -0400
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,T_DKIM_INVALID
 autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2
Received: from lists.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::11]:50300)
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
 (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <zefram@fysh.org>) id 1d2ScS-0002jL-KZ
 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 23 Apr 2017 21:16:48 -0400
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51158)
 by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
 (envelope-from <zefram@fysh.org>) id 1d2ScR-0006VU-I8
 for bug-guile@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Apr 2017 21:16:48 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
 (envelope-from <zefram@fysh.org>) id 1d2ScQ-0002iu-KZ
 for bug-guile@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Apr 2017 21:16:47 -0400
Received: from river6.fysh.org ([2001:41d0:d:20da::2]:35328
 helo=river.fysh.org)
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16)
 (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <zefram@fysh.org>) id 1d2ScQ-0002in-EC
 for bug-guile@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Apr 2017 21:16:46 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fysh.org;
 s=20170316; 
 h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Subject:To:From:Date;
 bh=b2K8zwBd4uyZ0S1LtU7/75SbldgONStAggo3NHP6Gyg=; 
 b=IlqG5tNHj/E/UzJAg2wJ9l7Xba8IE7evljQ1+diHuIALWeNEehpAD8WIXp8UHm1JWnlH/wHzRLmyPXKSpazOh7PdxQyyfasahYvRv4gue9nUC8YKQVcYwxSJFURD0kVWw6ITVa/eCXwkm/uBHMQ+lv0rslY3mDOQqUskTnelqT8=;
Received: from zefram by river.fysh.org with local (Exim 4.84_2 #1 (Debian))
 id 1d2ScN-0007JL-0B; Mon, 24 Apr 2017 02:16:43 +0100
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 02:16:42 +0100
From: Zefram <zefram@fysh.org>
To: bug-guile@gnu.org
Subject: TAI<->UTC conversion botches pre-1961 era
Message-ID: <20170424011642.GM6765@fysh.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not
 recognized.
X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x
X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::11
X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----)
X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request@debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request@debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request@debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----)

Asking SRFI-19 to perform a UTC-to-TAI conversion for an ordinary day
in 1960:

scheme@(guile-user)> (use-modules (srfi srfi-19))
scheme@(guile-user)> (time-utc->time-tai (date->time-utc (make-date 0 0 0 12 14 3 1960 0)))
$1 = #<time type: time-tai nanosecond: 0 second: -309268800>

The answer given is incorrect.  Unlike previous conversion bugs where it
was necessary to perform some arithmetic to reveal that the conversion
had gone wrong, in this case the answer can be declared wrong without any
detailed interpretation of the TAI time structure.  It is incorrect for
this conversion to return any specific TAI time, upon which arithmetic
could be performed, because UTC is not defined for any time prior to 1961.
The only sane behaviour is for the conversion to signal an error.

The same goes for time-tai->time-utc, which at present accurately inverts
time-utc->time-tai for the above time.

-zefram