From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 17 15:38:43 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8CC9106566C for ; Wed, 17 Sep 2008 15:38:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhein@timing.com) Received: from Daffy.timing.com (daffy.timing.com [206.168.13.218]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9458D8FC19 for ; Wed, 17 Sep 2008 15:38:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhein@timing.com) Received: from gromit.timing.com (gromit.timing.com [206.168.13.209]) by Daffy.timing.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m8HFceX2098296 for ; Wed, 17 Sep 2008 09:38:43 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from jhein@timing.com) Received: from gromit.timing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gromit.timing.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m8HFccu9096708; Wed, 17 Sep 2008 09:38:38 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from jhein@gromit.timing.com) Received: (from jhein@localhost) by gromit.timing.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/Submit) id m8HFccvq096705; Wed, 17 Sep 2008 09:38:38 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from jhein) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <18641.9342.134166.77425@gromit.timing.com> Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 09:38:38 -0600 From: John Hein To: John Baldwin In-Reply-To: <200809171040.36105.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <75968.1221600374@critter.freebsd.dk> <200809171040.36105.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Mailer: VM 7.19 under Emacs 22.2.1 X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.91.2, clamav-milter version 0.91.2 on Daffy.timing.com X-Virus-Status: Clean Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 64 bit time_t X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 15:38:43 -0000 John Baldwin wrote at 10:40 -0400 on Sep 17, 2008: > And with amd64/x86-64, it may prove to not really be necessary. I'm not sure I understand the "may" part. Aren't we already using 64 bit time_t natively on amd64? Or maybe you're talking about 32 bit compat on amd64.