Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 20:40:15 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: jbryant@unix.tfs.net Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: proposal to not change time_t Message-ID: <199808182040.NAA28432@usr06.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <199808181952.OAA11770@unix.tfs.net> from "Jim Bryant" at Aug 18, 98 02:52:17 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> i am making a proposal here to not change time_t. > > what i would like to propose here is to create alternate, look-alike > functions. [ ... ] > it would be nice to be the first major unix to actually claim immunity > to the 2039 flaw. bsd has a illustrious history of setting the > standard. let's do it again. How do you propose to deal with the fact that the file timestamp for FFS is a 32 bit value, and the spare fields that were intended to be used to resolve the 2039 bug have been stolen to store nanoseconds? Ie: how do you plan to deal with disk files created after 2039? How do you plan to deal with Linux EXT2FS and other FS's that failed to consider the issue in their design in the first place? You can't claim compliance fo something you don't control; you have to simply note it as an exception. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199808182040.NAA28432>