From owner-freebsd-arch Sat Oct 27 0: 1:15 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 6FB1337B40B; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 00:01:10 -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 f9R71AM46984; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 00:01:10 -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 D02E9380A; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 00:01:09 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Matthew Dillon , Mike Smith , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: time_t not to change size on x86 In-Reply-To: <20011027064343.03830380A@overcee.netplex.com.au> Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 00:01:09 -0700 From: Peter Wemm Message-Id: <20011027070109.D02E9380A@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 Peter Wemm wrote: > 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. As a followup, I wont fight to the bitter end if people are really convinced that it is a good idea and are going to firmly commit themselves to pick up the mess in both the src and entire ports tree. That means submitting patches back to the original distribution producers. But that the idea of it still gives me the creeps. I believe we'll be chasing bugs from this for years on the i386. > > DES and I have allocated time to work on it starting mid-november. > > Nobody else has comitted time yet. > > > > -Matt 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