Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 30 Oct 2001 14:57:28 -0500
From:      Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu>
To:        Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>, Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Cc:        Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>, <arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Subject:   Re: 64 bit times revisited..
Message-ID:  <p0510100db804b3601cca@[128.113.24.47]>
In-Reply-To: <200110301834.f9UIYeR94440@apollo.backplane.com>
References:  <20011030210857.R1525-100000@delplex.bde.org> <200110301834.f9UIYeR94440@apollo.backplane.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 10:34 AM -0800 10/30/01, Matthew Dillon wrote:
>     We can't make time_t unsigned anyway.  A huge amount of code
>     (hundreds of instances) do delta comparisons and simply assume
>     that time_t is signed.  With it unsigned many of those comparisons
>     would blow up (return true when they should return false).

My understanding is that we have two debates going.  One for time_t
being 64-bit, and a related one for what we should do about time_t
values which are stored on disk as part of UFS.  It is probably way
too disruptive to change the size of those fields, so those fields
probably have to stay 32-bit.  So then the question is "can we make
those UFS fields be unsigned, so they'll last past 2038?".  I don't
think anyone is pushing for time_t itself to be unsigned.  (someone
correct me if I'm wrong... :-)

>     This means that if we are NOT going to change IA32 but we ARE
>     going to change 64 bit architectures, then we should do it
>     *without* rolling system calls at all which would mean having
>     to eat any binary incompatibilities from older code.  It might
>     conceivably be worth rolling the syscalls if we were to change
>     IA32, but if we aren't it just isn't worth it to roll the
>     syscalls just to support pre-time-change 64 bit platforms.

I think the Alpha crowd is saying that they don't want that platform
to change unless IA32 also changes, at least not for 5.0-release. I
do not know if it makes sense to move to 64-bit on new platforms,
and then decide about rolling the system calls on older platforms
at some later date...

-- 
Garance Alistair Drosehn            =   gad@eclipse.acs.rpi.edu
Senior Systems Programmer           or  gad@freebsd.org
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute    or  drosih@rpi.edu

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?p0510100db804b3601cca>