Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 17:02:39 +0000 (GMT) From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk> To: arch <arch@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: time_t not to change size on x86, votes Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.31.0110291659060.16874-100000@mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: <15325.24809.802579.778980@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 29 Oct 2001, Andrew Gallatin wrote: > Garance A Drosihn writes: > > > > I think those who run Alpha should vote on Alpha. I do not run > > Alpha, and do not expect that I personally will get an Alpha > > machine. > > As an alpha user, I feel that the alpha should NOT be migrated to a > 64-bit time_t until & unless the i386 is migrated. I think we all can > agree that due to a corporate knife in the back, the alpha will have a > much shorter lifespan than the x86. I seriously doubt there will be > any alphas running FreeBSD 36 years from now. What are the filesystem implications of a 64-bit timestamp? I've not juggled disks with FBSD - are FBSD filesystems portable across architectures? - and if so, do they remain so if some platforms get the larger timestamp? jan PS. Seem to recall 64 bits of space around a timestamp in inodes, but my memory's not what it was. RTFS, and I should cocoa. -- jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/ Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 RFC822 jan.grant@bris.ac.uk (Things I've found in my attic, #2: A hundredweight of pornography.) 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?Pine.GSO.4.31.0110291659060.16874-100000>