Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 12:51:28 -0700 From: Jim Pirzyk <Jim.Pirzyk@disney.com> To: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> Cc: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org>, Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>, Mike Smith <msmith@FreeBSD.ORG>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: time_t not to change size on x86 Message-ID: <3BDB103F.763377D@disney.com> References: <200110270636.f9R6aik43419@apollo.backplane.com> <20011027064343.03830380A@overcee.netplex.com.au> <20011027124149.A486@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 11:43:42PM -0700, 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.
>
> Since we're counting votes: I too think we should leave the i386 alone.
>
> Changing time_t to long is a good "first step". Cross-platform
> inconsistencies (ie on-disk structures) are a preliminary to
> what we can expect if we do want to change the i386 *and*
> maintain backward compatibility. So, let's deal with that in
> a less destructive environment. If people still think we should
> move the i386 to a 64-bit time_t after we've dealed with the
> 64-bit archs, they can do so at their leasure, knowing that the
> road has been paved enough that you don't need off-road vehicles
> to cross the terrain. Personally I doubt it will be necessary...
>
> In the mean time, being able to use %ld for time_t is *very*
> convenient and truly MI.
>
> So: One step at a time, guys. Leave the i386 alone. If there's ever
> a need for making the switch on i386 (which I doubt) we can do that
> just as well at a later time, with a lot more insight than we have
> now...
>
> IMO; Let it be known. I step out of the discussion again.
I too agree that we should change time_t on the 64bit
platforms and leave the i386 platform alone. I do really
doubt that there will be many of those running in 2038, so
what does it buy us? Yes it does buy us the same field
size on all platforms, but at the expense of not being
able to use %ld for our printf's everywhere. I do not see
it really gives us the platform independance if we have to
#ifdef alpha* in our printf code.
- JimP
* alpha being just a repreentation of a 64 bit FreeBSD
platform.
--
--- @(#) $Id: dot.signature,v 1.10 2001/05/17 23:38:49 Jim.Pirzyk Exp $
__o Jim.Pirzyk@disney.com ------------- pirzyk@freebsd.org
_'\<,_ Senior Systems Engineer, Walt Disney Feature Animation
(*)/ (*)
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3BDB103F.763377D>