From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Aug 13 17:41:16 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA18819 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 17:41:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from goliath.camtech.net.au (goliath.camtech.net.au [203.5.73.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA18806 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 17:41:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from brawley@camtech.com.au) Received: from sebastion.sa.camtech.com.au (sebastion.sa.camtech.com.au [203.28.3.2]) by goliath.camtech.net.au (8.8.5/8.8.2) with ESMTP id KAA03698 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 10:10:24 +0930 (CST) Received: (from smtp@localhost) by sebastion.sa.camtech.com.au (8.8.5/8.8.7) id KAA08087 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 10:10:40 +0930 (CST) Received: from slingshot(192.168.1.2) by sebastion via smap (V2.0) id xma008085; Fri, 14 Aug 98 10:10:30 +0930 Received: from mad.ct (mad.ct [192.168.1.12]) by slingshot.camtech.com.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA18758 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 10:10:29 +0930 From: Ivan Brawley Received: (from brawley@localhost) by mad.ct (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA14156 for hackers@FreeBSD.ORG; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 10:10:03 +0930 (CST) Message-Id: <199808140040.KAA14156@mad.ct> Subject: Re: 64-bit time_t In-Reply-To: <199808131721.KAA00864@antipodes.cdrom.com> from Mike Smith at "Aug 13, 98 10:21:52 am" To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 10:10:02 +0930 (CST) X-Phase-Of-Moon: Waning Gibbous (60% of Full) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL32 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG The one named Mike Smith wrote: } > How soon will FreeBSD move to a 64-bit time_t? The article at } > } > http://www.wired.com/news/news/technology/story/14390.html } Read the article: } } Certainly by 2038, Unix 'time_t' will be 64 bits or more, } assuming Unix survives in some form," said Dennis Ritchie, } co-author of the Unix operating system. } } If you have nothing else to worry about for the next 40 years, I'm sure } we can find you something more useful to do. 8) Question: What is wrong with using an unsigned long for time_t, instead of long (which is then assumed signed). Fits in 32 bits, clocks keep going for another 69 years, one (or a maybe a few) words added to source code of os and libraries... As the above article hinted at, time_t can only count to 2^31-1 seconds. With unsigned long, it can count to 2^32-1 seconds. Yeah, 64bit time_t (signed or unsigned) will mean that we don't need to worry about for a while longer (other more urgent things may happen first, like the sun dieing, etc :-) Just my 2cents worth... ivan. -- #define private public // As spotted in a C++ program Phone: +61 8 8303 3300 Ivan Brawley Fax: +61 8 8303 4403 Systems Administrator Email: brawley@camtech.com.au CAMTECH http://www.camtech.com.au To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message