Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 11:52:08 -0500 From: Tom Rhodes <trhodes@FreeBSD.org> To: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/sys _timeval.h src/sys/fs/procfs procfs_status.c src/libexec/bootpd bootpd.c src/sys/dev/acpica/Osd OsdSynch.c src/sys/dev/firewire sbp.c Message-ID: <20051227115208.0074f35f.trhodes@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <43B16DF3.2060102@samsco.org> References: <200512242222.jBOMMHRA056613@repoman.freebsd.org> <43B16DF3.2060102@samsco.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 09:38:11 -0700 Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> wrote: > Tom Rhodes wrote: > > trhodes 2005-12-24 22:22:17 UTC > > > > FreeBSD src repository > > > > Modified files: > > sys/sys _timeval.h > > sys/fs/procfs procfs_status.c > > libexec/bootpd bootpd.c > > sys/dev/acpica/Osd OsdSynch.c > > sys/dev/firewire sbp.c > > Log: > > Make tv_sec a time_t on all platforms but alpha. Brings us more in line with > > POSIX. This also makes the struct correct we ever implement an i386-time64 > > architecture. Not that we need too. > > > > Reviewed by: imp, brooks > > Approved by: njl (acpica), des (no objects, touches procfs) > > Tested with: make universe > > > > Revision Changes Path > > 1.24 +3 -2 src/libexec/bootpd/bootpd.c > > 1.26 +2 -2 src/sys/dev/acpica/Osd/OsdSynch.c > > 1.82 +2 -2 src/sys/dev/firewire/sbp.c > > 1.57 +4 -4 src/sys/fs/procfs/procfs_status.c > > 1.2 +5 -1 src/sys/sys/_timeval.h > > I honestly don't ever expect FreeBSD/i386 to go to a 64-bit time_t. > There are 32 more years before it would need to, and I'll eat my hat > if there is a FreeBSD/i386 in the year 2038. Brooks and I joked about that. :) > > Also note that 'make universe' doesn't always halt on errors. If you I know, it usually goes to "Error code 1" and then begins the next build. > need help fixing all of the fallout from this, please say so. I'm going There shouldn't be any more fallout, but I'm going to do separate build tests just to make sure. > to be really upset if the tree stays broken for days/weeks as problems > are slowly fixed one at a time. I know you will, Scott, and I agree we don't want CURRENT broken. :) -- Tom Rhodes
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051227115208.0074f35f.trhodes>