From owner-freebsd-arch Fri Oct 26 19:12: 2 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mass.dis.org (mass.dis.org [216.240.45.41]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD2C637B405 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 19:12:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mass.dis.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mass.dis.org (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f9R2Ojv06850; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 19:24:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from msmith@mass.dis.org) Message-Id: <200110270224.f9R2Ojv06850@mass.dis.org> To: Peter Wemm Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 64 bit times revisited.. In-Reply-To: Message from Peter Wemm of "Fri, 26 Oct 2001 18:51:33 PDT." <20011027015133.E4539380A@overcee.netplex.com.au> Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 19:24:45 -0700 From: Mike Smith Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > Mike Smith wrote: > > > If there is a shift in the time_t paradigm, it's going to need to be > > driven by the industry at large, and it will need to be supported by > > wider consensus than a small frothing cabal such as currently stands > > behind this set of proposals. > > Does "Linux" represent a large enough portion of the Unix industry? > Its 64 bit platforms have 64 bit time_t (long) and their 32 bit platforms > have 32 bit time_t (long). If there's a rift in the industry, then siding with Linux is probably a safe move, given that a sanity check on their activities doesn't make us barf. 8) > I wish I hadn't even brought up the possibility of changing i386. I didn't > make it clear enough how much I hated the idea of it. I'm sure we can arrange for you to suffer for it later. 8) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message