From owner-freebsd-arch Sat Jun 2 13:49: 9 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from wall.polstra.com (rtrwan160.accessone.com [206.213.115.74]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FEBE37B423 for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2001 13:49:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jdp@wall.polstra.com) Received: from vashon.polstra.com (vashon.polstra.com [206.213.73.13]) by wall.polstra.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f52Kn1028572; Sat, 2 Jun 2001 13:49:01 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jdp@wall.polstra.com) Received: (from jdp@localhost) by vashon.polstra.com (8.11.3/8.11.0) id f52Kn1W35106; Sat, 2 Jun 2001 13:49:01 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jdp) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 13:49:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200106022049.f52Kn1W35106@vashon.polstra.com> To: arch@freebsd.org From: John Polstra Cc: ertr1013@student.uu.se Subject: Re: time_t definition is worng In-Reply-To: <20010602222626.A26556@student.uu.se> References: <200106012318.f51NI8w38590@bunrab.catwhisker.org> <200106021739.f52Hd9V03943@earth.backplane.com> <20010602124732.F31257@dragon.nuxi.com> <20010602222626.A26556@student.uu.se> Organization: Polstra & Co., Seattle, WA Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In article <20010602222626.A26556@student.uu.se>, Erik Trulsson wrote: > > I did a bit of searching in the archives and it seems that this very > question was discussed on the freebsd-alpha list in late Dec./early Jan > 1998/1999. As expected there doesn't seem to have been any consensus > on what the "right" thing is. (Since there obviously are valid > arguments on both sides.) > > One thing that was mentioned in that discussion though was that FFS > uses time_t in some of the on-disk structures. This means that one > should probably be careful when changing the size of time_t to stay > compatible with existing filesystems. Hmm, that's an excellent point. Thank you for researching the previous discussions. Since only the kernel mess with the filesystem bits directly, the fact that a 32-bit time_t is used in FFS needn't be a show-stopper for moving to a 64-bit type in userland. (A few utilities such as newfs, fsck, and tunefs might need to be tweaked too.) Though if we didn't eventually increase time_t's size in FFS too, it wouldn't do us much good to widen it anywhere else. John -- John Polstra jdp@polstra.com John D. Polstra & Co., Inc. Seattle, Washington USA "Disappointment is a good sign of basic intelligence." -- Chögyam Trungpa To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message