Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 18:49:36 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 64 bit times revisited.. Message-ID: <20011025184936.A4609@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0110251708240.99888-100000@beppo>; from mjacob@feral.com on Thu, Oct 25, 2001 at 05:28:11PM -0700 References: <20011025233602.587C63808@overcee.netplex.com.au> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0110251708240.99888-100000@beppo>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Oct 25, 2001 at 05:28:11PM -0700, Matthew Jacob wrote: > > It was pointed out that *all* the linux 64 bit arches have 64 bit time_t, > > so obviously it isn't too hard a problem to solve. > > No, that's not a fair comparison as linux pays for such ease by making > very little committment to true machine/arch independent code. I want to chime in and agree with Matt here. My earlier pushes in this area was to make make FreeBSD consistent. FreeBSD on one platform should be as alike every other FreeBSD platform as we can make it. Thus I want time_t to be the same size on every FreeBSD platform so that time wrap-arounds happen in the same way on the most popular platform (read i386) which gets a lot of testing and defines what is FreeBSD in behavior, and the Alpha platform (which at times seems to only have a hand-full of users). As we get more platforms, we are only going to have more of the problem of FreeBSD really only being well used on one of our offered architectures. -- David 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?20011025184936.A4609>