Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 07:51:01 -0800 From: Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group <Cy.Schubert@uumail.gov.bc.ca> To: Peter Jeremy <peter.jeremy@alcatel.com.au> Cc: Bakul Shah <bakul@bitblocks.com>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>, Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 64 bit times revisited.. Message-ID: <200111011551.fA1FpVL05946@cwsys.cwsent.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 01 Nov 2001 10:20:14 %2B1100." <20011101102014.D94635@gsmx07.alcatel.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20011101102014.D94635@gsmx07.alcatel.com.au>, Peter Jeremy writes: > Y2K should have taught us that software winds up being used for far > longer than was originally intended - and one of the major costs was > finding this software. 2038 is biting some applications now - and the > number will only rise with time. The quicker we solve the problem, > the less re-work that will be necessary. The other thing that Y2K taught us is that sometimes you cannot find the source code, yet the binaries have been running for decades. I'm not advocating not going to 64 bit time_t but I think that cases where the source code has been lost should be considered, e.g. ELF branding for binaries built after 64 bit time_t has been implemented. However ultimately those binaries will break in 2038, so the question is, is this reasonable idea? Regards, Phone: (250)387-8437 Cy Schubert Fax: (250)387-5766 Team Leader, Sun/Alpha Team Internet: Cy.Schubert@osg.gov.bc.ca Open Systems Group, ITSD Ministry of Management Services Province of BC 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?200111011551.fA1FpVL05946>