From owner-freebsd-arch Fri Oct 26 18:51:38 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from peter3.wemm.org (c1315225-a.plstn1.sfba.home.com [24.14.150.180]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5095B37B409; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 18:51:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from overcee.netplex.com.au (overcee.wemm.org [10.0.0.3]) by peter3.wemm.org (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f9R1pYM46215; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 18:51:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) Received: from wemm.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by overcee.netplex.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4539380A; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 18:51:33 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Mike Smith Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 64 bit times revisited.. In-Reply-To: <200110270137.f9R1bVv06321@mass.dis.org> Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 18:51:33 -0700 From: Peter Wemm Message-Id: <20011027015133.E4539380A@overcee.netplex.com.au> 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 Mike Smith wrote: > If there is a shift in the time_t paradigm, it's going to need to be > driven by the industry at large, and it will need to be supported by > wider consensus than a small frothing cabal such as currently stands > behind this set of proposals. Does "Linux" represent a large enough portion of the Unix industry? Its 64 bit platforms have 64 bit time_t (long) and their 32 bit platforms have 32 bit time_t (long). We have new 64 bit platforms coming online as we speak. It would be a terrible shame to waste the opportunity to resolve it. Unlike the others in the thread, I see little benefit but lots of pain, in changing time_t on i386. I doubt i386 32 bit apps will be around in 20 years. If it lives on, it will be something like x86-64 or intel's spin on that. It too will have 64 bit "long" and we can use a 64 bit time_t there. I dont see sufficient reason to inflict this pain on i386 in the name of having the same size time_t. Having the same type (long) - yes, but using a quad_t is just expensive overkill. I wish I hadn't even brought up the possibility of changing i386. I didn't make it clear enough how much I hated the idea of it. Cheers, -Peter -- Peter Wemm - peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com; peter@netplex.com.au "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message