Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 12:18:30 -0700 (PDT) From: jin@george.lbl.gov To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG, sheldonh@uunet.co.za Subject: Re: bin/14472: date for Y#K Message-ID: <199910291918.MAA24925@george.lbl.gov>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> From: Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@uunet.co.za> > Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 09:51:34 +0200 > > On Mon, 25 Oct 1999 09:12:37 MST, jin@george.lbl.gov wrote: > > > That is, I could not find how the 2037 is set. Any idea how we > > can fix this limitation? > > It's not a small job. :-) > > You'd need to change the definition of _BSD_TIME_T, which is a long at > the moment. I imagine there's an enormous amount of software (including > parts of the kernel) that'd choke on this. What happens if we change the definition of _BSD_TIME_T to int64_t? Is it a performance issue or may it break an enormous things? "long" seems to be a bad type definition in C program since it is not in a fixed variable size. I will not use it at a critical segment. > Ciao, > Sheldon. > > PS: The function you'd wanna look at is settimeofday. When I traced the code, the time2() returns failure error code that causes date failure. If the code can reach settimeofday(), I think the job is done because settimeofday() only coptin the data and set it. There is no checking in settimeofday(). -Jin To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199910291918.MAA24925>