From owner-freebsd-arch Mon Oct 29 14:10:19 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mail.rpi.edu (mail.rpi.edu [128.113.22.40]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 027D637B403 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 14:10:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from [128.113.24.47] (gilead.acs.rpi.edu [128.113.24.47]) by mail.rpi.edu (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f9TMA6f38454; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 17:10:06 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: drosih@mail.rpi.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 17:10:03 -0500 To: Julian Elischer , Nate Williams From: Garance A Drosihn Subject: Re: 64 bit times revisited.. Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" 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 At 12:46 PM -0800 10/29/01, Julian Elischer wrote: >why? You are coming up with a method to expand timestamps to the year 2600, and the proposal works by stealing bits from one place and adding that to unsigned bits in another. I can not imagine 400 years of looking at such a baroque kludge, so I also say "yuck". We can fix time_t to hold 64-bit values. Kirk McKusick has already said that he's working on an upgrade for UFS which will simply store those 64-bit values as 64-bit values. I would rather see energy spent on that solution instead of piecing together a value from various bits which are theoretically available. If we get so UFS2 has basically replaced UFS by (say) 2010, then we'll be in fine shape and in plenty of time. That is just my opinion, of course. >On Mon, 29 Oct 2001, Nate Williams wrote: > >> > yes you are right here.. >> > > > > But the two TOP bits of the nanosecond fields are by definition > > > always 0 (you can only have up to 1,000,000,000 nano seconds in > > > a partial second) and 32 bits goes up to 4 (American)billion, so > > > the two top bits can safely be used for multiplying the seconds > > > scale by 4. ... timestamps can't be before 1970 so making it > > > unsigned allows us to go to 2100+ and mutiplying it by four takes > > > us to about 2600.. > > > > All I can say is *yuck*. -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@eclipse.acs.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message