From owner-freebsd-sparc64@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Mar 30 11:03:20 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-sparc64@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAE1816A4CE
	for <freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org>;
	Tue, 30 Mar 2004 11:03:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from slacknet.slacknet.com (slacknet.slacknet.com [204.228.135.180])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9833143D4C
	for <freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org>;
	Tue, 30 Mar 2004 11:03:20 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from rj45@slacknet.com)
Received: from rj45 (helo=localhost)
	by slacknet.slacknet.com with local-esmtp (Exim 4.30 #1 (Debian))
	id 1B8OW7-000628-Sb; Tue, 30 Mar 2004 12:03:19 -0700
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 12:03:19 -0700 (MST)
From: RJ45 <rj45@slacknet.com>
To: John-Mark Gurney <gurney_j@efn.org>
In-Reply-To: <20040330180520.GT567@funkthat.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0403301203060.22664-100000@slacknet.slacknet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false
cc: freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: problem with dates
X-BeenThere: freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the Sparc <freebsd-sparc64.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-sparc64>,
	<mailto:freebsd-sparc64-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-sparc64>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-sparc64-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-sparc64>,
	<mailto:freebsd-sparc64-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 19:03:20 -0000


I think you are right
this is also happening to me with OpenBSD on sparc64

thanks

Rick


On Tue, 30 Mar 2004, John-Mark Gurney wrote:

> RJ45 wrote this message on Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 10:39 -0700:
> > even if this si the current time:
> > 
> > Tue Mar 30 19:39:04 CEST 2004
> > 
> > anyone got this problem?
> > thanks
> 
> Looks like the code is broken in that it assumes that time_t is an int,
> and passes a pointer to a time_t to another function that casts it to
> an integer...  This would turn up this problem since time_t's are now
> 64bits, and int's are 32bits, and since sparc64 is a big endian platform,
> the first 32bits of a 64bit time_t are usually zero...
> 
> Tell the author of the program that his code is broken. 
> 
> -- 
>   John-Mark Gurney				Voice: +1 415 225 5579
> 
>      "All that I will do, has been done, All that I have, has not."
>