From owner-freebsd-arch Fri Oct 26 17: 0:37 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mass.dis.org (mass.dis.org [216.240.45.41]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64BFA37B401 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 17:00:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mass.dis.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mass.dis.org (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f9R0DCv05573; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 17:13:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from msmith@mass.dis.org) Message-Id: <200110270013.f9R0DCv05573@mass.dis.org> To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Cc: Bakul Shah , Poul-Henning Kamp , Peter Wemm , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 64 bit times revisited.. In-Reply-To: Message from Dag-Erling Smorgrav of "27 Oct 2001 01:46:29 +0200." Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 17:13:12 -0700 From: Mike Smith 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 > Since you're so stuck up about standardization, go see POSIX or SUSv2 > or the Austin spec and show me a single reference to "nstime64_t" in > any one of those documents. > > I will not discuss this any further. It's too much like teaching pigs > to sing. Much of this discussion leans this way. Just think about all this for a second, folks. We have about twenty years before this is a real problem. We have about twenty years worth of real work that needs to be done. So why don't we just put the whole, stupid time_t issue back at the bottom of the list, and get on with any of the hundreds of much more important issues that need to be dealt with, ok? And before anyone gets their knickers in a knot, remember this; all of the system time values (time_t, timeval, timespec) are meant to represent possible values of "now". Until "now" starts to blow them out, we have much bigger fish to fry. = Mike To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message