Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 10:40:35 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Cc: arch@freebsd.org, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org>, John Hein <jhein@timing.com> Subject: Re: 64 bit time_t Message-ID: <200809171040.36105.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <75968.1221600374@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <75968.1221600374@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday 16 September 2008 05:26:14 pm Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <20080916211646.GA35778@lor.one-eyed-alien.net>, Brooks Davis writes > : > > > >--PEIAKu/WMn1b1Hv9 > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > >Content-Disposition: inline > > > >On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 02:17:16PM -0600, John Hein wrote: > >> Other than recompiling for -current users (and not being an MFC-able > >> change and possibly breaking a gazillion unfortunately written ports), > >> are their any other issues with switching to 64 bit time_t for i386? > >> I suppose compat libs are a bit dicey. > > > >Off hand: every syscall that takes a time_t or a structure containing > >a time_t would have to be reimplemented and a compatability version[...] > > This is a pretty nasty piece of work because it also involves the > timespec and timeval structures which appear in ioctls, socket > options, socket messages and so on. And with amd64/x86-64, it may prove to not really be necessary. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200809171040.36105.jhb>