Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 17:13:12 -0700 From: Mike Smith <msmith@freebsd.org> To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> Cc: Bakul Shah <bakul@bitblocks.com>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>, Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 64 bit times revisited.. Message-ID: <200110270013.f9R0DCv05573@mass.dis.org> In-Reply-To: Message from Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> of "27 Oct 2001 01:46:29 %2B0200." <xzpsnc6q816.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200110270013.f9R0DCv05573>