From owner-freebsd-arch Fri Oct 26 14:44:26 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mail.rpi.edu (mail.rpi.edu [128.113.22.40]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EDBB37B401 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 14:44:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [128.113.24.47] (gilead.acs.rpi.edu [128.113.24.47]) by mail.rpi.edu (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f9QLi4J55186 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 17:44:04 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: drosih@mail.rpi.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20011026134453.B17758@dragon.nuxi.com> References: <200110260006.f9Q05vQ05273@beastie.mckusick.com> <200110260047.f9Q0lsf16513@apollo.backplane.com> <20011026134453.B17758@dragon.nuxi.com> Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 17:44:01 -0400 To: arch@FreeBSD.ORG From: Garance A Drosihn Subject: Re: 64 bit times revisited.. Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" 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 At 1:44 PM -0700 10/26/01, David O'Brien wrote: >On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 01:29:53PM -0400, Garance A Drosihn wrote: > > We are hoping to bring on new platforms of sparc64 > > and ia-64 for the 5.0-timeframe (or certainly before the 6.0 >> timeframe). It would be exceedingly stupid to start out those >> 64-bit platforms on 32-bit time_t's, when we KNOW we will have > > switch to 64-bit times at some later point. > >I disagree. I have experience trying to run our "lesser" [used] >platform, most of you do not. Keeping things bug-for-bug and >"feature"-for-"feature" identical is important. Once sparc64 shows up, I'll be getting just as much experience as you will... Same for PowerPC. (which is to say, I plan to run FreeBSD on three hardware architectures, one of which will be 64-bit). > > Given 64-bit time_t's for the new platforms, we might as well go >> for 64-bit times on all platforms (although we obviously can > > not MFC that back into the 4.x-branch for 32-bit platforms). > > I don't feel quite so strongly about 64-bit time_t's on 32-bit > > architectures, but it does seem like the right thing to do. > >64-bit for FreeBSD or 32-bit for FreeBSD. No 1/2's please. I suspect we just have slightly different priorities... I'll pound the table for 64-bit on 64-bit (particularly for all those new platforms), and merely vote yes for 64-bit on 32-bit. You can give a lukewarm vote of yes for 64-bit on 64-bit, and then pound the table that time_t should be the same on all platforms... Seems like we should be able to come up with an agreeable solution here! :-) -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@eclipse.acs.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message