Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 15:57:14 -0700 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> Cc: sparc64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Minor problem with 64bTT: monthly accounting figures Message-ID: <20040419225714.GC47217@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <p06020407bca9f9cd4c82@[128.113.24.47]> References: <20040301145508.GA27240@seekingfire.com> <20040301150312.GQ35475@elvis.mu.org> <p060204a1bc6936fd1174@[128.113.24.47]> <200404191408.56929.peter@wemm.org> <p06020407bca9f9cd4c82@[128.113.24.47]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--oJ71EGRlYNjSvfq7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 05:50:42PM -0400, Garance A Drosihn wrote: > At 2:08 PM -0700 4/19/04, Peter Wemm wrote: > > > >Just fyi, ac does things like this: > > > > time_t ut_timecopy; > > ut_timecopy =3D _time32_to_time(event_up->ut_time); > > strlcpy(str_result, ctime(&ut_timecopy), sizeof(str_result)); > > > >However, there is also a big scary comment that says: > > * With sparc64 using 64-bit time_t's, there is some system > > * routine which sets ut_time=3D=3D0 (the high-order word of a > > * 64-bit time) instead of a 32-bit time value. > > > >It sounds like something clobbers ut_time.. >=20 > Big scary comment added by me, when fixing 'ac' to do more > reasonable things with such records... Afaik, we have still > not figured out what it is that writes records with zero for > the timestamp. Should an erratum be added in case this is unresolved by 5.3, or is this too minor an issue? Kris --oJ71EGRlYNjSvfq7 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFAhFlJWry0BWjoQKURAvMGAJ9eoDIva+x9jXRzEcKsKlhnCjzX3ACeLiZv nxPTSfJF/Rvt1Q+Nj8N4p/A= =bA7u -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --oJ71EGRlYNjSvfq7--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040419225714.GC47217>