From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Apr 4 18:00:36 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A22616A400 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2006 18:00:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F6A943D49 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2006 18:00:36 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k34I0ZcL039792 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2006 18:00:35 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id k34I0Zq0039791; Tue, 4 Apr 2006 18:00:35 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 18:00:35 GMT Message-Id: <200604041800.k34I0Zq0039791@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org From: Kris Kennaway Cc: Subject: Re: misc/95290: amd64 inetd returns 8 byte time value instead of 4 byte X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Kris Kennaway List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 18:00:36 -0000 The following reply was made to PR bin/95290; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Kris Kennaway To: Bruce Becker Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: misc/95290: amd64 inetd returns 8 byte time value instead of 4 byte Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 13:59:44 -0400 --liOOAslEiF7prFVr Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 11:36:14PM +0000, Bruce Becker wrote: > >How-To-Repeat: > Enable the "time" builtin in inetd.conf, then "telnet localhost time > xxx" - > the last line of "xxx" will contain the erroneous 8 byte result There's also an argument that the RFC is broken since 64-bit time_t is the way of the future (i.e. the RFC is not Y2.038K compliant and will need to be amended anyway). Kris --liOOAslEiF7prFVr Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFEMrQQWry0BWjoQKURAuZ1AKDkTlquWz5yl3PpR6X+hzfVwPQFUQCffm+l U/soAWbyxayG1c1W+R6/0JM= =in/h -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --liOOAslEiF7prFVr--