From owner-freebsd-alpha@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Mar 15 13:11:48 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-alpha@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-alpha@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 0DE4416A4CE; Tue, 15 Mar 2005 13:11:48 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (f170.freebsd.dk [212.242.86.170])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 2CBF143D41; Tue, 15 Mar 2005 13:11:47 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by critter.freebsd.dk (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j2FDBiCD011070;
	Tue, 15 Mar 2005 14:11:44 +0100 (CET)
	(envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk)
To: des@des.no (=?iso-8859-1?q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?=)
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 15 Mar 2005 13:04:35 +0100."
             <86u0ndktd8.fsf@xps.des.no> 
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 14:11:44 +0100
Message-ID: <11069.1110892304@critter.freebsd.dk>
Sender: phk@critter.freebsd.dk
cc: alpha@freebsd.org
cc: FreeBSD Tinderbox <tinderbox@freebsd.org>
cc: current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: [current tinderbox] failure on alpha/alpha 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-alpha@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the Alpha <freebsd-alpha.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-alpha>,
	<mailto:freebsd-alpha-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-alpha>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-alpha@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-alpha-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-alpha>,
	<mailto:freebsd-alpha-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 13:11:48 -0000

In message <86u0ndktd8.fsf@xps.des.no>, =?iso-8859-1?q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?= 
writes:
>Philip Paeps <philip@freebsd.org> writes:
>> Also, <don asbestos undies>, is there a specific reason for not having a 64bit
>> wide time_t on Alpha?
>
>Historical reasons (comptability with OSF/1, I believe).  Changing to
>a 64-bit time_t at this point would be inadvisable.

The entire time_t thing is on hold right now, pending the outcome of
ITU-R study group 7As work to revise TF.460-6 (ITU-R question 102/7)

Once we know the result of that, we can decide _in general_ what the
future holds for time_t.

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.