From owner-freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Oct 15 00:06:50 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-standards@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 21E5616A4B3; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:06:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailhub.fokus.fraunhofer.de (mailhub.fokus.fraunhofer.de
	[193.174.154.14])	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 221F843FAF; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:06:46 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from brandt@fokus.fraunhofer.de)
Received: from beagle (beagle [193.175.132.100])h9F76cD05857;
	Wed, 15 Oct 2003 09:06:38 +0200 (MEST)
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 09:06:38 +0200 (CEST)
From: Harti Brandt <brandt@fokus.fraunhofer.de>
To: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net>
In-Reply-To: <20031014225053.GA59096@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net>
Message-ID: <20031015090422.M57857@beagle.fokus.fraunhofer.de>
References: <20031013153219.H45269@beagle.fokus.fraunhofer.de>
	<20031015045429.Q41837@gamplex.bde.org>
	<20031014225053.GA59096@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: standards@freebsd.org
cc: sparc64@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: time_t on sparc64
X-BeenThere: freebsd-standards@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Standards compliance <freebsd-standards.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-standards>,
	<mailto:freebsd-standards-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-standards>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-standards@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-standards-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-standards>,
	<mailto:freebsd-standards-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 07:06:50 -0000

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:

MM>On Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 05:28:08AM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
MM>> >
MM>> > I guess we have to do this work before 2038, don't we? If we don't do it
MM>> > before 5.2 we have to stick with this until 6.0. Correct?
MM>>
MM>> Yes.
MM>>
MM>> It is too late to change it for 5.n IMO.  Every syscall that uses a time_t
MM>> or a timeval would need to be duplicated.
MM>
MM>I'd rather we create a new sysent and prune the syscalls to get rid of
MM>other compatibility cruft. It also allows us change userland visible
MM>structures to make them more LP64 friendly.
MM>
MM>BTW: time_t on ia64 is already 64 bit.

Hmm. In this case it should be rather easy to change sparc64's time_t to
64bit? The only changes should be in MD code (in theory). But this would
clearly break existing installations, so I guess we'd rather wait until
the fork of 6.

harti
-- 
harti brandt,
http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/research/cc/cats/employees/hartmut.brandt/private
brandt@fokus.fraunhofer.de, harti@freebsd.org