From owner-freebsd-arch Fri Oct 26 18:23:30 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mail11.speakeasy.net (mail11.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.211]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A524F37B406 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 18:23:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 84227 invoked from network); 27 Oct 2001 01:23:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop.baldwin.cx) ([64.81.54.73]) (envelope-sender ) by mail11.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 27 Oct 2001 01:23:25 -0000 Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.4.0 on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 18:23:23 -0700 (PDT) From: John Baldwin To: John Baldwin Subject: Re: 64 bit times revisited.. Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav , Mike Smith , Bakul Shah , Poul-Henning Kamp , Peter Wemm , arch@FreeBSD.ORG, Matthew Dillon 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 On 27-Oct-01 John Baldwin wrote: > > On 27-Oct-01 Matthew Dillon wrote: >> >>: >>:Matthew Dillon writes: >>:> Is anyone game for this project? >>: >>:I'd volunteer, but I have too many of my own patches to worry about >>:right now. How about mid-November, after BSDCon Europe? >>: >>:DES >>:-- >>:Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@ofug.org >> >> With the vnode and sync scaleability stuff *almost* out of the way I've >> started working on the Giant lock unwinding stuff, so I don't have time >> this moment either, but I would certainly have time available >> mid-november to help out! >> >> The project could be done and stabilized in a week with three or more >> people helping out. There is good functional separation: >> >> >> * type changes (stat, timespec, timeval, timex, time_t) >> * syscall number rolls & compatibility code (sorry BSDI, it's more then >> 10) >> * kernel side audit to handle new time_t & structures >> * libc audit - all time related functions >> * userland audit to handle new time_t & structures >> >> >> I think everyone has agreed on time_t going to 64 bits, and of course >> it must be seconds. We have to decide in regards to timeval, stat, and >> timespec. It looks like we may not have to mess with timex, which is >> good. > > You did read the e-mail from Garrett where either SUS or POSIX one requires > time_t to fit in a long? I.e. sizeof(time_t) <= sizeof(long). This means > that if you bump time_t to 64 on i386, you have to bump long to 64, which is > decidely something many people don't want to do. I would suggest if you > insist > on working on this, you first convert time_t to a long so that platforms with > 64-bit longs will have a 64-bit time_t, and then once you've cleaned up the > messes that makes, you will still have time to decide if you want ppc and > i386 > to go form ILP32 to IP32L64 (or however you specify that) which will probably > involve backwards compatible syscalls, etc. One step a time. You don't have > to do it all at once, and after doing the first step, you may find that that > is > enough. My bad. C90 requires that time_t fit into a long according to Garrett. POSIX requires it to be either an integer or floating point with the fractional part zero according to his mail as well. -- John Baldwin -- http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ PGP Key: http://www.baldwin.cx/~john/pgpkey.asc "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message