Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 23:43:42 -0700 From: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Cc: Mike Smith <msmith@FreeBSD.ORG>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: time_t not to change size on x86 Message-ID: <20011027064343.03830380A@overcee.netplex.com.au> In-Reply-To: <200110270636.f9R6aik43419@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Matthew Dillon wrote: > > :Just to clarify, based on Peter's last mail. > : > :The proposal is not to change the size of time_t on x86, merely to > :select a suitable size on new platforms so that we migrate in a > :suitable fashion. > : > :This is fine, and a sensible idea. > > No, the current proposal... the one that has the most support (even if > you discount me), is that we do not change time_t in 4.x, but in > 5.x we change it to a 64 bit integer on all platforms (including IA32). To be clear, I absolutely DO NOT support this. > This version has support from several camps. A bunch of 5.x guys like > it because it means that all the 64 bit issues can be worked out by > the larger community running on standard intel platforms. Other people > like it because it (obviously) solves the 2038 problem. I do not like it because it creates **additional** problems that will appear *only* on the i386. -current has got enough problems without bullet holes through the feet of the primary platform. I'm quite happy with changing from 'int' to 'long', but *not* quad. > DES and I have allocated time to work on it starting mid-november. > Nobody else has comitted time yet. > > -Matt > Matthew Dillon > <dillon@backplane.com> Cheers, -Peter -- Peter Wemm - peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com; peter@netplex.com.au "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5 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?20011027064343.03830380A>