From owner-freebsd-arch Fri Oct 26 23:43:48 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 E6E8E37B401; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 23:43:43 -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 f9R6hhM46935; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 23:43:43 -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 03830380A; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 23:43:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Matthew Dillon Cc: Mike Smith , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: time_t not to change size on x86 In-Reply-To: <200110270636.f9R6aik43419@apollo.backplane.com> Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 23:43:42 -0700 From: Peter Wemm Message-Id: <20011027064343.03830380A@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 Matthew Dillon wrote: > > :Just to clarify, based on Peter's last mail. > : > :The proposal is not to change the size of time_t on x86, merely to > :select a suitable size on new platforms so that we migrate in a > :suitable fashion. > : > :This is fine, and a sensible idea. > > No, the current proposal... the one that has the most support (even if > you discount me), is that we do not change time_t in 4.x, but in > 5.x we change it to a 64 bit integer on all platforms (including IA32). To be clear, I absolutely DO NOT support this. > This version has support from several camps. A bunch of 5.x guys like > it because it means that all the 64 bit issues can be worked out by > the larger community running on standard intel platforms. Other people > like it because it (obviously) solves the 2038 problem. I do not like it because it creates **additional** problems that will appear *only* on the i386. -current has got enough problems without bullet holes through the feet of the primary platform. I'm quite happy with changing from 'int' to 'long', but *not* quad. > DES and I have allocated time to work on it starting mid-november. > Nobody else has comitted time yet. > > -Matt > Matthew Dillon > 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