Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 14:11:44 +0100 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: des@des.no (=?iso-8859-1?q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?=) Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [current tinderbox] failure on alpha/alpha Message-ID: <11069.1110892304@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 15 Mar 2005 13:04:35 %2B0100." <86u0ndktd8.fsf@xps.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <86u0ndktd8.fsf@xps.des.no>, =?iso-8859-1?q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?= writes: >Philip Paeps <philip@freebsd.org> writes: >> Also, <don asbestos undies>, is there a specific reason for not having a 64bit >> wide time_t on Alpha? > >Historical reasons (comptability with OSF/1, I believe). Changing to >a 64-bit time_t at this point would be inadvisable. The entire time_t thing is on hold right now, pending the outcome of ITU-R study group 7As work to revise TF.460-6 (ITU-R question 102/7) Once we know the result of that, we can decide _in general_ what the future holds for time_t. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?11069.1110892304>