Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 02:39:24 -0700 (PDT) From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG, Mike Smith <msmith@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: time_t not to change size on x86 Message-ID: <XFMail.011027023924.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <200110270636.f9R6aik43419@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 27-Oct-01 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). Actually, Peter listed like 3 proposals. I think changing the 386 would be the wrong thing to do. At the very least, it should be changed last. First change the 64-bit archs to use a 64-bit time_t (i..e., make time_t a 'long'). Then fix up the bugs that crop up from that. You can worry about hosing the ppc and i386 ports later. You may even want to make the ppc port use a 64-bit time_t since it is new, but I would leave i386 alone. That's my vote at least. You might want to count the actual votes flying around before assuming most people want to change time_t on the 386. -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> -- http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ PGP Key: http://www.baldwin.cx/~john/pgpkey.asc "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ 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?XFMail.011027023924.jhb>