Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 18:45:08 +0200 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> Cc: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>, Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>, Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 64 bit times revisited.. Message-ID: <3686.1004114708@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 26 Oct 2001 11:42:49 CDT." <20011026114249.E15052@elvis.mu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20011026114249.E15052@elvis.mu.org>, Alfred Perlstein writes: >> And have you considered that there may be other and stronger >> requirements than make(1) and that multi-cpu, multi-threaded systems >> may push the envelope ? >> >> Solving the problem means going for a timestamp which can resolve >> any conceiveable CPU frequencies for all relevant future. > >I guess I should have more in depth knowledge of these systems by >now, but what's wrong with having the in-core being a full >64/128/whatever bits while the on disk itself doesn't? Because applications in core write files on disk ? :-) I'm merely advocating solving the problem and not hacking around it. -- 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. 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?3686.1004114708>