Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 00:51:35 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: nate@mt.sri.com (Nate Williams) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, jbryant@unix.tfs.net, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, jkh@time.cdrom.com Subject: Re: proposal to not change time_t Message-ID: <199808200051.RAA00591@usr05.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <199808191518.JAA20039@mt.sri.com> from "Nate Williams" at Aug 19, 98 09:18:55 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > when a decision is made for real migration, #define's can be used as > > > an interim kludge to port EXISTING time_t code without code changes. > > > > The existing time_t is not a problem. The existing time_t is 32 bits. > > A 64 bit time_t is only a problem because the fields reserved for a > > 64 bit time_t were stolen. Recover them! They are stolen propery! > > They *belong* to time_t! > > For what it's worth, the nsec fields in the FS were *stolen* by the very > folk that brought us UFS. They are part of Lite2. (I just checked). Doesn't make it less of a hack. Maybe it was BSDI dropping a logic bomb on us... ;-). > So, you're whining to the wrong crowd. Go yell at Kirk for awhile, and > see what his response is. :) :) I'll ask him. 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?199808200051.RAA00591>