From owner-freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 15 00:44:56 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-standards@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBD8A16A4B3; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:44:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ns1.xcllnt.net (209-128-86-226.BAYAREA.NET [209.128.86.226]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4104543FDD; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:44:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marcel@xcllnt.net) Received: from dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net (dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net [192.168.4.201]) by ns1.xcllnt.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h9F7ikbe096983; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:44:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marcel@piii.pn.xcllnt.net) Received: from dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) h9F7iknb060405; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:44:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marcel@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net) Received: (from marcel@localhost) by dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id h9F7ibPn060404; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:44:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marcel) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:44:37 -0700 From: Marcel Moolenaar To: Harti Brandt Message-ID: <20031015074437.GA60338@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> References: <20031013153219.H45269@beagle.fokus.fraunhofer.de> <20031014103446.U45269@beagle.fokus.fraunhofer.de> <20031015045429.Q41837@gamplex.bde.org> <20031014225053.GA59096@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> <20031015090422.M57857@beagle.fokus.fraunhofer.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031015090422.M57857@beagle.fokus.fraunhofer.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i cc: standards@freebsd.org cc: sparc64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: time_t on sparc64 X-BeenThere: freebsd-standards@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Standards compliance List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 07:44:57 -0000 On Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 09:06:38AM +0200, Harti Brandt wrote: > MM> > MM>BTW: time_t on ia64 is already 64 bit. > > Hmm. In this case it should be rather easy to change sparc64's time_t to > 64bit? Yes. The MI code is already done and there's not much MD code that is expected to break. It's mostly the structures that change. This is especially painful on sparc64 because it's big-endian. I assume that sparc64 passes syscall arguments in registers, so the syscalls that take a time_t do not change except that there's no sign extension prior to use. You can preserve the ABI until 2038 by ignoring the upper 32-bits in that case. -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net