Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 10:10:02 +0930 (CST) From: Ivan Brawley <brawley@camtech.com.au> To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 64-bit time_t Message-ID: <199808140040.KAA14156@mad.ct> In-Reply-To: <199808131721.KAA00864@antipodes.cdrom.com> from Mike Smith at "Aug 13, 98 10:21:52 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The one named Mike Smith wrote: } > How soon will FreeBSD move to a 64-bit time_t? The article at } > } > http://www.wired.com/news/news/technology/story/14390.html } Read the article: } } Certainly by 2038, Unix 'time_t' will be 64 bits or more, } assuming Unix survives in some form," said Dennis Ritchie, } co-author of the Unix operating system. } } If you have nothing else to worry about for the next 40 years, I'm sure } we can find you something more useful to do. 8) Question: What is wrong with using an unsigned long for time_t, instead of long (which is then assumed signed). Fits in 32 bits, clocks keep going for another 69 years, one (or a maybe a few) words added to source code of os and libraries... As the above article hinted at, time_t can only count to 2^31-1 seconds. With unsigned long, it can count to 2^32-1 seconds. Yeah, 64bit time_t (signed or unsigned) will mean that we don't need to worry about for a while longer (other more urgent things may happen first, like the sun dieing, etc :-) Just my 2cents worth... ivan. -- #define private public // As spotted in a C++ program Phone: +61 8 8303 3300 Ivan Brawley Fax: +61 8 8303 4403 Systems Administrator Email: brawley@camtech.com.au CAMTECH http://www.camtech.com.au To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199808140040.KAA14156>