Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 18:11:40 -0800 From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> To: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> Cc: sparc64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Problem with DHCLIENT vs 64-bit time_t Message-ID: <20040223021140.GA83894@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> In-Reply-To: <p0602046dbc5efd648caf@[128.113.24.47]> References: <p06020407bc533f0ae9d2@[128.113.24.47]> <20040215060047.GA62840@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> <p0602040ebc54c885236b@[128.113.24.47]> <20040215165913.M30161@grogged.dyndns.org> <p06020425bc571c20bcde@[128.113.24.47]> <p06020466bc5e09bf7182@[128.113.24.47]> <xzpznbbwfxb.fsf@dwp.des.no> <p0602046dbc5efd648caf@[128.113.24.47]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 07:57:04PM -0500, Garance A Drosihn wrote: > > In a later message, Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav wrote: > >Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> writes: > >> This code is then obviously also broken on amd64 and ia64 [...] > > > >yep, if they have 64-bit time_t. > > They do, but they are also different-endian. Perhaps the bug > is not as serious in that case. Good point. > It could also be that the > people able to spend money on amd64 and ia64 can also afford > to have fixed IP addresses, and they don't run dhclient :-) Yes, that too. So I guess it's sparc64 specific after all then :-) -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040223021140.GA83894>