From owner-freebsd-arch Fri Oct 26 12:22:49 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from root.com (root.com [209.102.106.178]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8216137B403 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 12:22:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from dg@localhost) by root.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f9QJJSW59274; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 12:19:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dg) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 12:19:28 -0700 From: David Greenman To: Julian Elischer Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp , tlambert2@mindspring.com, Peter Wemm , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 64 bit times revisited.. Message-ID: <20011026121928.D58218@nexus.root.com> References: <20011026100039.C58218@nexus.root.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: ; from julian@elischer.org on Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 12:49:59PM -0700 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 >> Any solution that tries to bandaid the problem by using a few bits from >> here or there is unacceptable to me. I have mixed feelings about changing >> to phk's 1/1^64 fractional timestamp idea, but I do think that we should >> make time_t 64 bits on all architectures, including x86, starting with v5 >> of FreeBSD. > >that would be 1/2^64 no? Yes, of course. I originally tried to write it as 1/1<<64, but then thought that sounded convoluted and then promptly screwed it up when I wrote it as a power of two. Anyway, you knew what I meant! :-) -DG David Greenman Co-founder, The FreeBSD Project - http://www.freebsd.org President, TeraSolutions, Inc. - http://www.terasolutions.com Pave the road of life with opportunities. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message