From owner-freebsd-arch Sat Oct 27 5: 4:13 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from flood.ping.uio.no (flood.ping.uio.no [129.240.78.31]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B42C37B408; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 05:04:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by flood.ping.uio.no (Postfix, from userid 2602) id 0ED2914C2E; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 14:04:08 +0200 (CEST) X-URL: http://www.ofug.org/~des/ X-Disclaimer: The views expressed in this message do not necessarily coincide with those of any organisation or company with which I am or have been affiliated. To: John Baldwin Cc: Matthew Dillon , arch@FreeBSD.ORG, Mike Smith Subject: Re: time_t not to change size on x86 References: From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Date: 27 Oct 2001 14:04:06 +0200 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lines: 14 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/20.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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 John Baldwin writes: > 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. I'm willing to go along with this as a compromise. DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@ofug.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message